Most conferences are *not* recorded, here's the portable device we use to both capture interviews and to plug directly into the speaker amplication system via XLR to capture the *best* audio possible of conference talks

http://www.amazon.com/Zoom-Handy-Portable-Digital-Recorder/dp/B001QWBM62

Quote from: AdamBLevine on October 10, 2014, 04:54:28 pm

Quote from: delulo on October 10, 2014, 04:42:47 pm

Quote from: AdamBLevine on October 10, 2014, 04:35:12 pm

Quote from: delulo on October 10, 2014, 04:33:24 pm

Do you have an example of such behavior / statements?

Quote

The community defense team is why so few people who aren't true believers bother with this forum.  It's why there's now talk of if the forum is even a good place for anybody new because posting questions as a new user are often ridiculed or attacked as trolls or sockpuppets.

I read a thread recently about tonyk and this exact behavior, sorry I don't have a link it wasn't something I saved.

Tonyk is one individual. Everyone has his own opinions. Btw he rants against pretty much anything new users or BitShares Music like here https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=8652.0 Let's keep the discussion based on facts (not the emotional bias that we ALL have)

You asked for an example of such behavior, I provided one.   You didnt have the thread quoted so perhaps you responded before my edit

Edit: here you go https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=9375.0;topicseen

You are right Adam, that there is such behavior here on the forum. But I don't think it is legitimate to generalize it for the forum as a whole and call it "the community defense team".
To be fair towards tonyk he rants about all kinds of things and I am sure it is not out of an evil spirit (just a communication habit).

I'm not referring to the whole forum, just the elite subset like tonyk when I talk about the forum defense force or whatever.  Generally these people are "all in" on angelshares or otherwise have their financial future very tied up in the success of I3.  I3 doesn't like engaging on the forums about things they'd rather not have community input on and the community defenders gladly fill the void with attempts to stop the question from being asked or attack the asker since they themselves do not know the answer and they don't want invictus being left defenseless.

Have a good one.

Agreed, if you've got a video on youtube you should post it unless I3 has said they don't want unofficial versions out.

IMO if the others fit this definition, Dogeparty and Counterparty would also be in violation.

1 - investment of money due to - "Burned" Bitcoins could be construed as investment of money. Just because they didn't use the money doesn't mean that others didn't invest money via the burn process to get their respective stake.
2- an expectation of profits arising from - Again, I don't think they burned their Bitcoins expecting nothing or coins of similar value in return.
3- a common enterprise - The common enterprise being Dogeparty/Counterparty
4- which depends solely on the efforts of a promoter or third party - Dependent on the developers developing the software.

If a cryptocoin 2.0 protocol relied on some sort of crowd funding, whether it be via a more traditional-style crowdfunding or burning of cryptocurrency, there is the same end result. The difference being the projects that burned crypto just wasted money needlessly. Users invested money (burned/ICO/IPO)  to get an equity in the project (common enterprise) with an expectation of profit from said projects (rise in token value), the developments of which relied on promoters/third parties (developers/organizers).

This is a slippery slope, a very slippery slope indeed. I could probably name at least 20 different projects that this could be applicable to. All of which just happen to be the most innovative cryptocurrency projects in existence, which is very sad for the sake of innovation and development of different use cases of blockchain technology other than specifically for currency. I hope that the Feds just leave these projects alone and let the industry grow and mature on its own. They will get their cut somewhere down the line one way or the other, it doesn't have to be through the SEC. The money will trickle down to them into their pockets eventually.

Basically the question is whether it is possible to Invest in something by destroying the value.  We don't have an answer to this, my belief is no and you may be right, it may be construed as investment because if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, the feds are going to treat it like a duck analog

Either way it seems clear to me Invictus is under the gun on this one, we'll have to wait and see on Dogeparty.  LTBcoin is pretty straightforward and there was no IPO or burn, with distribution based on contribution it shouldn't fall under this but just like with Dogeparty if you get broad enough with your interpretation anything is possible.

It's funny how some people seem to think I take some sort of pleasure in this, I don't.  I'm just trying to keep people focused on reality at least a little since its easy to let what you wish reality to be dictate what you believe will happen.  Focus on the reality for Bitshares, why does it matter what happens to anybody else?  It's obvious deflecting.

PS: Guys, lets be nice to Adam. LTB and its subsidiaries have done a lot of good press for Bitshares and we don't want to burn that bridge. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions.

They can't be nice to me because I question what they wish to be true and I don't have time to beat around the bush when I see a problem or have a question.  They don't want to answer the question, they want it to stop being asked.

  The community defense team is why so few people who aren't true believers bother with this forum.  It's why there's now talk of if the forum is even a good place for anybody new because posting questions as a new user are often ridiculed or attacked as trolls or sockpuppets.

Like you said, I actually do some important work for Bitshares in addition to my commenting and provide a platform along with access to the LTB community many of whom after which joined the I3 community.  Given that I could stop all that and invest my time and money elsewhere, If they're willing to attack my questions, what kind of user wouldn't they be willing to attack?

@Adam

did you actually read the chatlogs?  Dogeparty is listed in there as well.   

Dogeparty didn't solicit funds that are used to fund the endeavor, so I'll be shocked if there is an issue with the SEC.  I also suspect Counterparty will be fine because of this.  In order for something to be a security, it must be purchased which means it must be sold.  Neither XDP or XCP were purchased or sold because nobody benefitted from the money.  Point 1 and 2 don't work for Dogeparty or Counterparty (because there is no pooling of capital) but they seem to very much work for Invictus

Here's the Howie Test

Justice Murphy, writing for the majority, identified the major legal issue in this case as whether or not the contracts Howey was selling (which in substance were basically leaseback agreements) constituted an "investment contract" within the meaning of § 2(a)(1) of the Securities Act of 1933. Murphy reasoned that while the term "investment contract" was left undefined by the Act, it had been used in state blue sky laws to cover a broad array of contracts and other schemes to raise capital in a way to secure some income or profit from the use thereof. Thus, the Court concluded, Congress had written the term into the statute in recognition of its previously adopted common law meaning.

Murphy then formulated one of the U.S. Supreme Court's earliest tests to determine whether an instrument qualifies as an "investment contract" for the purposes of the Securities Act (which later came to be referred to as the Howey test):

1 - investment of money due to
2- an expectation of profits arising from
3- a common enterprise
4- which depends solely on the efforts of a promoter or third party

Murphy determined that the contracts in issue here met all four prongs of this test, and thus W. J. Howey could be held liable for violating § 5 of the Securities Act of 1933. Furthermore, Murphy held that the fact that some of the investors chose to use services other than those of Howey-in-the-Hills to tend to the groves was irrelevant, because §5 forbids the offer of unregistered securities, as well as the sale of them.

I have the direct feed audio of Daniels talk but it's not processed yet and is a ways back in my content backlog, will be out on LTB in a week or two.

Quote from: AdamBLevine on October 10, 2014, 12:27:13 pm

Quote from: CoinHoarder on October 10, 2014, 12:01:24 pm

Code: [Select]

[6:17:07 PM] Wendell: SWARM… Who else?
[6:17:15 PM] Wendell: Is SWARM even incorporated?
[6:17:52 PM] Xavier  Hawk: Hmmm....CP, Bitshares, Swarm, mastercoin,
[6:18:09 PM] Xavier  Hawk: Ethereum
[6:18:13 PM] Gavin Knight: ethereum would be a likely target do to the mass volume, but they seemed to have tight legal
[6:18:17 PM] Xavier  Hawk: Storj
[6:18:23 PM] Xavier  Hawk: Maidsafe

Most of these companies are not based in the US from what I can tell. I know that Swarm, Ethereum, BitsharesX, and Maidsafe are not at least. CP didn't do an IPO, but burned Bitcoins to get genesis stake.. I'm not sure that would be counted either even though they do seem to be based in the US. Mastercoin probably falls under this category, unfortunately for them. The projects that have launched since them have been more cautionary in terms of regulatory issues.

This is still bad news over all though... just when Bitcoin/crypto is starting to rebound too. The powers that be can't stand it when the 99% have easy access to investing in disruptive technologies when they were blissfully unaware of their existence.

SWARM is US based, and I'll be shocked if Invictus is not getting a knock on the door come raid day for Angelshares.

and before you say "They're not based in the US", they were when they were collecting money for angelshares and that's what matters.

Why would you be shocked Adam?  Angel shares is a private record of a donation of cryptographic digital information....in return for which, those who donated will receive several allocations of cryptographic digital information within open-source software products.  On what basis could someone come after them?  Are we not free to gift an arrangement of harmless digital information to whomever we choose and receive harmless digital information in return?

Try not to panic....this technological innovation cannot be un-invented.  The writing is on the wall.  One way or another, blockchain technology will redistribute the power of money and transform our societies.  It's already happening.  Decentralization is and has always been the key.  Bitshares will endure.

Ben, I'm not sure how long you've been around this community but Angelshares has morphed in "what it is" several times.  It has been a donation, an investment, a trust, etc.  All these words were used in official material and in communications to people who were asked to give money by the people who were recieving it.   Take a look at the disclaimer in posts by Daniel or Stan, you'll notice the disclaimer saying anything they say on these forums is non-binding.  Well, that's great but it was a bit late and much was said in the interim. 

I totally agree none of this can be uninvented, I've never claimed that and *I'm* not panic-ing or really even concerned, but it's naive to say that Invictus won't be on the list because they're "not based in the US".  If you're panic-ing, it probably means you are too vested in the bitshares ecosystem and your incentives are screwed up because of it.   Our viewpoints should be guided by the way things are, not the way we wish they were.

Quote from: AdamBLevine on October 09, 2014, 06:52:01 pm

Quote from: MktDirector on October 09, 2014, 03:41:21 pm

Hey guys.   

Quick update.....I can assure you we are working around the clock on the marketing campaign.  Just like the many months Dan and the devs were working on BitSharesX - where it seemed like nothing at all was happening, this too isn't as easy (or as fast) as any of us would expect or want it to be.   

The marketing team has been spending nearly every day (and most of the event in Vegas) speaking with "on-ramp" service companies in order to find the best solution for getting USD into BTSX and bitUSD.  We are VERY close, btw, with one of them.  In addition, we are working on an "off-ramp" partner who can provide a bitUSD direct to a prepaid credit card to allow users to get out of bitUSD without needing a normal crypto exchange.  We were hoping to find one company to do both, but no one is able to do both at this time so we have two different sides to develop for this platform. 

On top of both of those partnerships, we're looking for "backup" service providers in the event either one cant handle the volume we intend to push.  We need to tie in the API's on the back end for a seamless experience, build a separate site, finish producing the multiple videos that explain what/how/why of BTSX and bitUSD, and so much more. 

This project is more involved than it may look from the outside, but I can assure you everything is moving forward.  Like Dan, I'm not going to put a specific date on when all this will be completed and the "go" button pushed, but it WILL happen. And when it does, it will be plainly obvious it is a DIRECT result of our efforts.

As for transparency, we are not sharing all the details of how or where we're going to get all the new users we expect to see into our system, or precisely what we are doing, for obvious reasons.  No one in the industry is doing what we are attempting to do - which is the very reason we will have the results no one else is having. 

The team I've assembled is nothing short of top notch and has knocked it out of the park in many other industries.  I have no doubt they'll do the same with us.  We expect a VERY significant increase in new users, as well as capital, into both BTSX and bitUSD, once launched, so our goal is real growth, not "pumping" the value artificially. 

I know many of you are anxious and wanting to see big returns on the of time, money and trust you've placed in BitShares.  I too want all of those things.  We will get there, I have no doubts.  Stay tuned.... The day we launch, I'll make the forum aware of it immediately so you can see exaclty what we've created and send your own friends and contacts through the site, to participate. 

Thanks! B

Brian, you've described bizdev activities or  "business development".  What is the marketing plan?   

Do you think Bizdev (strategic partnerships and personal relationships) and Marketing (messaging) are the same thing?

Wasn't there a project called dogeparty?
That's what I call true marketing effort - AdamBLevine style!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUpW18Exw8g

You can find info about dogeparty at http://dogeparty.io, I think it's pretty easy to understand but it's important to note that Brian is the director of marketing for Invictus who has been paid a salary to do that job for more than six months.  I was never compensated in any way for my work on Dogeparty, and I donated my time/effort because I think its a valuable experiment.

Thanks for representing the forum defense force and reminding me why I don't waste my time in this cheerleading echo chamber.