Quote from: Permie on June 25, 2015, 09:18:56 PM
So long as there are no legal restrictions on further development etc

And the costs are not too high to cripple development speed (due to lack of funds) by the nascent Cryptonomex.

And I thought Cryptonomex is only doing software development and consulting. Why should there be any need for a BitLicense in that case? If Cryptonomex does have greater plans that go beyond pure software development that may require such a license, wouldn't it be better to split that role off into another company to protect the development side of things?

The fact of applying for BitLicence might suggest CNX positions itself as an operator of the BTS business.
My understanding was that CNX wanted to limit itself to being a software developer only and if that's the case having BitLicence does not make much sense.

Unless CNX has bigger plans than that.

Quote from: Permie on June 25, 2015, 09:18:56 PM

Quote from: werneo on June 25, 2015, 09:13:33 PM
If you want to engage in "Virtual Currency Business Activity" in the financial hub of the universe, you need a bitlicense.

Section 200.3 License
(a) License required. No Person shall, without a license obtained from the superintendent as provided in
this Part, engage in any Virtual Currency Business Activity.

http://www.dfs.ny.gov/legal/regulations/adoptions/dfsp200t.pdf

Bitlicense will give priceless credibility to cryptomomex and the BitShares network. It will have a salutary effect on the price of bts. Likewise, if you *don't* get a bitlicense, credibility will suffer, and price will not be informed by serious investors interested in a credible product.

It's all upside.

So long as there are no legal restrictions on further development etc

The development team will create "optional" features for BitShares that will fulfill AML compliance requirements. Anybody using these optional features can consider themselves "regulated" in so far as the government is concerned.

Quote from: werneo on June 25, 2015, 09:13:33 PM
If you want to engage in "Virtual Currency Business Activity" in the financial hub of the universe, you need a bitlicense.

Section 200.3 License
(a) License required. No Person shall, without a license obtained from the superintendent as provided in
this Part, engage in any Virtual Currency Business Activity.

http://www.dfs.ny.gov/legal/regulations/adoptions/dfsp200t.pdf

Bitlicense will give priceless credibility to cryptomomex and the BitShares network. It will have a salutary effect on the price of bts. Likewise, if you *don't* get a bitlicense, credibility will suffer, and price will not be informed by serious investors interested in a credible product.

It's all upside.

So long as there are no legal restrictions on further development etc

If you want to engage in "Virtual Currency Business Activity" in the financial hub of the universe, you need a bitlicense.

Section 200.3 License
(a) License required. No Person shall, without a license obtained from the superintendent as provided in
this Part, engage in any Virtual Currency Business Activity.

http://www.dfs.ny.gov/legal/regulations/adoptions/dfsp200t.pdf

Bitlicense will give priceless credibility to cryptomomex and the BitShares network. It will have a salutary effect on the price of bts. Likewise, if you *don't* get a bitlicense, credibility will suffer, and price will not be informed by serious investors interested in a credible product.

It's all upside.

http://www.newsbtc.com/2015/06/19/bitlicense-shots-down-another-bitcoin-company-in-new-york/

Quote from: kenCode on June 13, 2015, 08:20:25 AM
When the government shows up at your place of business, you go ahead and give them the middle finger, I'd like to see that

Quote from: Tuck Fheman on June 12, 2015, 01:58:15 PM

Quote from: pgbit on June 25, 2015, 05:24:23 PM

Quote from: luckybit on June 25, 2015, 05:16:51 PM

Quote from: bytemaster on June 24, 2015, 08:48:16 PM
Please brainstorm every rationale why you think Cryptonomex needs to apply for a BitLicense.

How might it apply to us and our partners?

Compliance is a long term strategic advantage and a short term competitive advantage. The fact that Bitshares allows for compliance is a long term competitive advantage.

What is the cost of a BitLicense, and is that cost sustainable in the current financial environment?

If you want your company to be able to interact with New York which is the financial capital of the USA then you need the Bitlicense.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJwBjBaqSqc

I agree with ander.

The US government are essentially looters and they will make the laws that allow legally allow them to loot you once bitshares become big enough, regardless of what the rules are today. Afterall, we already have retroactive laws.

How much do they cost?  If it isnt too expensive maybe it best to just apply and be safer.

Quote from: luckybit on June 25, 2015, 05:16:51 PM

Quote from: bytemaster on June 24, 2015, 08:48:16 PM
Please brainstorm every rationale why you think Cryptonomex needs to apply for a BitLicense.

How might it apply to us and our partners?

Compliance is a long term strategic advantage and a short term competitive advantage. The fact that Bitshares allows for compliance is a long term competitive advantage.

What is the cost of a BitLicense, and is that cost sustainable in the current financial environment?

Quote from: bytemaster on June 24, 2015, 08:48:16 PM
Please brainstorm every rationale why you think Cryptonomex needs to apply for a BitLicense.

How might it apply to us and our partners?

Compliance is a long term strategic advantage and a short term competitive advantage. The fact that Bitshares allows for compliance is a long term competitive advantage.

Here is my reasoning at why you might be classed as a financial intermediary:

Ripple was fined because they were directly selling XRP, which they acknowledge is their only revenue source. XRP is clearly a financial product so the SEC made the argument they were an unlicensed financial intermediary.

Cryptonomex revenue stream is also largely made by selling BTS, which the community have voted all the delegate staff of Cryptonomex be able to do.

Whether the financial tokens are generated in one go and sold as with XRP, or the financial tokens are generated over time through some vote process as with BTS, I think the SEC wouldnt be interested in the semantics/technicals and see the 2 processes as equivalent.

Btw I dont neccessarily agree with this - just brainstorming but the parallels with XRP are there.

"This balance was highlighted in Lawsky's statements that the law seeks to only apply to "financial intermediaries" and not software providers."

http://www.coindesk.com/new-york-releases-final-bitlicense/

Please brainstorm every rationale why you think Cryptonomex needs to apply for a BitLicense.

How might it apply to us and our partners?