Author Topic: BitLicense  (Read 9836 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.


Offline Stan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2908
  • You need to think BIGGER, Pinky...
    • View Profile
    • Cryptonomex
  • BitShares: Stan
Bitlicense is required for digital currency exchanges.

The BTS network provides backbone services to those exchanges.

So, the network should have the ability to serve the needs of any exchange that wants to be compliance with bitlicense.

Will the BTS network have these (optional) compliance widgets built in? or not?

Quote
Virtual Currency Business Activity means the conduct of any one of the following types
of activities:
5. controlling, administering, or issuing a virtual currency.

If CMX does anything remotely like this, then it needs a bitlicense.

Also, having a bitlicense might help inform the CMX development team about what kind of network add-on features they might create that would help their clients (like CCEDK and banx.io) be in conformity with their own need for a bitlicense.
User issued assets (what banx will be using) do include optional functionality to freeze, reverse and identify. These features can be locked on/off and unchangeable post-issuance

Market pegged assets (bitUSD etc) are not issued by anyone, they are the product of an agreement between any two parties, anywhere in the world. These assets can't be frozen or controlled.

AFAIK CMX has not issued a UIA or any assets that allow for control, only built the system which enables that functionality.

Although I don't think CMX need one, I do see how it may be profitable in the future for cmx to sell their knowledge of the application. And newcomers looking to be 'compliant'/obedient could potentially feel more comfortable due to that fact.
But if this is something that members or profit-seeking entrepreneurs want to see then I think it would be best to set up this bitlicense-entity as entirely separate to CMX.

Is there really a need for a bit-license trailblazer?

This is a worthwhile question.  Not something CMX is interested in doing - we want to remain a software company that merely licenses its products to others for use in whatever jurisdictions feel safe to them.  (And, where possible, supply the tools they need to be compliant with whatever their relevant authorities demand.)

But it does point out a potential Wide Open Market Niche for someone else to exploit.   I'm pretty sure the BitShares community is not interested in sacrificing its free enterprise support to please overreaching regulators, but perhaps some might be interested in hedging their bets by owning shares in a chain dedicated to trailblazing a solution designed to compete and win in a bit-license submissive battle space (oxymoron intended).

Eventually, every ecological niche will get filled with a blockchain life form conditioned to thrive under those conditions.  Opportunities for entrepreneurs to fill those niches will abound.



« Last Edit: June 27, 2015, 03:44:02 pm by Stan »
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract of any kind.   These are merely my opinions which I reserve the right to change at any time.

Offline Permie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 606
  • BitShares is the mycelium of the financial-earth
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: krimduss
Bitlicense is required for digital currency exchanges.

The BTS network provides backbone services to those exchanges.

So, the network should have the ability to serve the needs of any exchange that wants to be compliance with bitlicense.

Will the BTS network have these (optional) compliance widgets built in? or not?

Quote
Virtual Currency Business Activity means the conduct of any one of the following types
of activities:
5. controlling, administering, or issuing a virtual currency.

If CMX does anything remotely like this, then it needs a bitlicense.

Also, having a bitlicense might help inform the CMX development team about what kind of network add-on features they might create that would help their clients (like CCEDK and banx.io) be in conformity with their own need for a bitlicense.
User issued assets (what banx will be using) do include optional functionality to freeze, reverse and identify. These features can be locked on/off and unchangeable post-issuance

Market pegged assets (bitUSD etc) are not issued by anyone, they are the product of an agreement between any two parties, anywhere in the world. These assets can't be frozen or controlled.

AFAIK CMX has not issued a UIA or any assets that allow for control, only built the system which enables that functionality.

Although I don't think CMX need one, I do see how it may be profitable in the future for cmx to sell their knowledge of the application. And newcomers looking to be 'compliant'/obedient could potentially feel more comfortable due to that fact.
But if this is something that members or profit-seeking entrepreneurs want to see then I think it would be best to set up this bitlicense-entity as entirely separate to CMX.
Is there really a need for a bit-license trailblazer?
JonnyBitcoin votes for liquidity and simplicity. Make him your proxy?
BTSDEX.COM

Offline speedy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1160
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: speedy
Quote
Virtual Currency Business Activity means the conduct of any one of the following types
of activities:
5. controlling, administering, or issuing a virtual currency.

If CMX does anything remotely like this, then it needs a bitlicense.

They dont control any virtual currency, just write open source software - its a fair argument. If they attempted to do something to BTS like enforce ID checks for everyone, the community would fork the software. Therefore they are not in control.

Offline werneo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 305
    • View Profile
    • chronicle of the precession of simulacra
  • BitShares: werneo
Bitlicense is required for digital currency exchanges.

The BTS network provides backbone services to those exchanges.

So, the network should have the ability to serve the needs of any exchange that wants to be compliance with bitlicense.

Will the BTS network have these (optional) compliance widgets built in? or not?

Quote
Virtual Currency Business Activity means the conduct of any one of the following types
of activities:
5. controlling, administering, or issuing a virtual currency.

If CMX does anything remotely like this, then it needs a bitlicense.

Also, having a bitlicense might help inform the CMX development team about what kind of network add-on features they might create that would help their clients (like CCEDK and banx.io) be in conformity with their own need for a bitlicense.



Offline cass

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4311
  • /(┬.┬)\
    • View Profile
█║▌║║█  - - -  The quieter you become, the more you are able to hear  - - -  █║▌║║█

Offline speedy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1160
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: speedy
31 pages including:

Quote
Applicants must also provide an investigative background report prepared by an independent investigatory agency for each individual applicant, including information such as credit history, employment history, and motor vehicle ownership history. Three personal references from non-relatives are required for all applicants.
http://cointelegraph.com/news/114681/new-york-releases-31-page-bitlicense-application-form

What a total waste of time. They want to know what your old cars were? Why not ex-girlfriends too?
« Last Edit: June 27, 2015, 09:56:02 am by speedy »

Offline Permie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 606
  • BitShares is the mycelium of the financial-earth
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: krimduss
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.

Which is why, it is worth repeating, get cryptonomex out of the US if you can!!!!!.
Right behind you on that, but it's not going to happen until the shareholders are willing and able to fund CMX moving their entire families abroad. Either that or have bts be in a position to sack/fire CMX unless they move countries. Even then it's still unlikely.
We can't exactly tell every budding US bts-entrepreneur to GTFO the country either.

Can the business incorporate(?) abroad and have those still on US soil as 'technically' remote work-from-home'rs?

If it means not being able to serve New York then so be it,
(Global market - NY) >> (NY Markets).

If BTS becomes the money machine that it can (without NY) then the worlds current financial hub NY would climb all over themselves to get a piece of the pie, and there would never be any need for BTS or CMX to get in to bed with crooks
« Last Edit: June 26, 2015, 04:14:48 pm by Permie »
JonnyBitcoin votes for liquidity and simplicity. Make him your proxy?
BTSDEX.COM

Offline karnal

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1068
    • View Profile
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.

Which is why, it is worth repeating, get cryptonomex out of the US if you can!!!!!.

Offline Chuckone

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 314
    • View Profile
Looking over the BitLicense the requirements are vague and demanding just to apply.   The $5000 submission fee is the least of the costs associated with it.

The costs seem really prohibitive. Is it really necessary to deal with that kind of hurdles if Cryptonomex only design software and do consultation? I believe Cryptonomex should stick to software and blockchain development as its core business and avoid putting itself in the line of fire of regulatory thugs.

Then, down the line, if Bitshares pays off and CNX wants to diversify it might become a good idea.

Offline bytemaster

Looking over the BitLicense the requirements are vague and demanding just to apply.   The $5000 submission fee is the least of the costs associated with it.   

For the latest updates checkout my blog: http://bytemaster.bitshares.org
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract between myself and anyone else.   These are merely my opinions and I reserve the right to change them at any time.

Offline Permie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 606
  • BitShares is the mycelium of the financial-earth
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: krimduss
As much as I hate to say it.  If there is any question about whether or not you need a bitlicense, and the cost is at all reasonable, I would go ahead and get one.

In my experience it is often better to pay for this "protection".  After all, if you don't something bad might happen you know.

if it ever comes down to defending yourself you have to assume that you will already have been painted in the worst possible light, and dragged through the mud in the media.  Having evidence that you attempted to comply with all stated rules at all times could make a big difference.
+5%

I think it's important that BitShares the ecosystem isn't registered, or seen that it needs to or should.
CMX could get licensed in prep for their privatised work, and by consequence give the dreaded "legitimacy" to the whole.

CMX could then profit from leasing their liscenced services and help run any future dev/worker proposals in the US in the future (legally ofc)?
JonnyBitcoin votes for liquidity and simplicity. Make him your proxy?
BTSDEX.COM

Offline puppies

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1659
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: puppies
As much as I hate to say it.  If there is any question about whether or not you need a bitlicense, and the cost is at all reasonable, I would go ahead and get one.

In my experience it is often better to pay for this "protection".  After all, if you don't something bad might happen you know.

if it ever comes down to defending yourself you have to assume that you will already have been painted in the worst possible light, and dragged through the mud in the media.  Having evidence that you attempted to comply with all stated rules at all times could make a big difference.
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline werneo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 305
    • View Profile
    • chronicle of the precession of simulacra
  • BitShares: werneo
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?

Depending on the role of CNX, this section might apply...

Section 200.2 Definitions
(q) Virtual Currency Business Activity means the conduct of any one of the following types of activities...:
(5) controlling, administering, or issuing a Virtual Currency.

The development and dissemination of software in and of itself does not constitute Virtual Currency Business
Activity.
« Last Edit: June 25, 2015, 11:14:34 pm by werneo »

Offline maqifrnswa

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 661
    • View Profile
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?

I think the fear is that without a a license there is always a liability that some regulatory issue may come up, even if they are just doing development and consulting. Even if CNX ends up being cleared in the end, the legal fees responding to inquiries may exceed the cost of just getting a license in the first place.

I don't know about CNX's current investors, but I bet some investors will be a little hesitant about funding unless there is a license (even if there is no reason to have the license). Splitting off the development side may not shield anyone.

There is a need for a license (as in you actually need to get one to be in compliance) and then there is a "need" for a license (to protect against regulatory inquiries and to make investors feel safer about their investments).
maintains an Ubuntu PPA: https://launchpad.net/~showard314/+archive/ubuntu/bitshares [15% delegate] wallet_account_set_approval maqifrnswa true [50% delegate] wallet_account_set_approval delegate1.maqifrnswa true