Author Topic: Proposal for Angelshares Investment in a DAC Trading Platform  (Read 23891 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Bitcoinfan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 240
    • View Profile
Compliance is still not defined by all state money transmitter laws and the companies know they have to be regulated and they go to every full measure they can to make sure they are safe and compliant.  Coinbase started with an AML policy and careful compliance to Fincen/MSB they did not start out allowing wire transfers without any details and blatant money laundering. I don't know how you got this idea that these companies just started out with these completely idealistic ideals that they were above all regulation, they instead got every compliance they were advised to and have kept away from ones that aren't "legally required" yet. The businesses are regulated and they are compliant with current laws. Thank you for your argument.

Any smart company or individual would act to avert legal harm and would not claim to be above a law. You are correct in that you do not know my familiarity with these companies. There was delight in the furthering of technologies that are beyond regulation. That is not to say that the companies ever acted to willfully violate any law. The draw to decentralized autonomous corporations is that they are decentralized autonomous corporations that can avoid oppressive regulations as necessary. I3 began with some lofty ideals too.

I3 is a company that is creating both technologies and companies. Traditional companies (like I3 itself) are easily forced to comply. The technologies can be forced to comply to the extent that they are managed by an entity that can be controlled. I3 sold an ideal that is disruptive to the notion of how companies may be formed and regulated, but is implementing what is practical within the rules it must comply with. Rules get modified as necessary to change what disruption to established interests is practical. I3 is not beyond the law but can act where laws do not yet restrict.

Everyone would agree that it is beneficial to have businesses that can act in compliance with laws. The question here is if the creator of the technology should be the one financing compliance for users of the technology. I doubt it is possible to spend enough to accomplish that without also sacrificing ideals.

+1

Offline Liberty

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 23
    • View Profile
Compliance is still not defined by all state money transmitter laws and the companies know they have to be regulated and they go to every full measure they can to make sure they are safe and compliant.  Coinbase started with an AML policy and careful compliance to Fincen/MSB they did not start out allowing wire transfers without any details and blatant money laundering. I don't know how you got this idea that these companies just started out with these completely idealistic ideals that they were above all regulation, they instead got every compliance they were advised to and have kept away from ones that aren't "legally required" yet. The businesses are regulated and they are compliant with current laws. Thank you for your argument.

Any smart company or individual would act to avert legal harm and would not claim to be above a law. You are correct in that you do not know my familiarity with these companies. There was delight in the furthering of technologies that are beyond regulation. That is not to say that the companies ever acted to willfully violate any law. The draw to decentralized autonomous corporations is that they are decentralized autonomous corporations that can avoid oppressive regulations as necessary. I3 began with some lofty ideals too.

I3 is a company that is creating both technologies and companies. Traditional companies (like I3 itself) are easily forced to comply. The technologies can be forced to comply to the extent that they are managed by an entity that can be controlled. I3 sold an ideal that is disruptive to the notion of how companies may be formed and regulated, but is implementing what is practical within the rules it must comply with. Rules get modified as necessary to change what disruption to established interests is practical. I3 is not beyond the law but can act where laws do not yet restrict.

Everyone would agree that it is beneficial to have businesses that can act in compliance with laws. The question here is if the creator of the technology should be the one financing compliance for users of the technology. I doubt it is possible to spend enough to accomplish that without also sacrificing ideals.

bitbro

  • Guest

Coinbase is doing fine because they have the backing of Andreesen Horowitz and the privileged-starts-only Silicon Valley Bank that isn't taking any more Bitcoin business right now (We checked, they're on "pause" right now even though we're a company that just sells sponsorships for Bitcoin).  Coinbase just got another 25 millionUSD in venture, I'm not  saying it's impossible but I am saying Invictus doesn't have anywhere near enough money, so it's a terribly inefficient way to spend it.

What Coinbase has done with Andreesen Horowitz we will achieve with my VC/accelerator/incubator contacts. I'm waiting for Techstars (Accelerator program) to respond to my last email. They partner with SVB and there may be a possibility to still get banking done through SVB. Else we will try and take another route. Just don't draw this entire operation off because SVB has closed their doors for now. I will call a few other Start-up friendly banks on Monday, like Square 1. I will keep you posted on what they say.

I actually think that this will be a useful way to invest Angelshares in an outside project that has potential to influence the output of Invictus' projects. What I ask for is enough money to bootstrap the initial operation (PTS<->Fiat trading platform and the incorporation), to get the required numbers on board in order to close a higher financing round to take on some of the bigger challenges.

Can you show us an initial budget for the angel shares funding?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Offline domsch

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 82
    • View Profile
Coinbase is doing fine because they have the backing of Andreesen Horowitz and the privileged-starts-only Silicon Valley Bank that isn't taking any more Bitcoin business right now (We checked, they're on "pause" right now even though we're a company that just sells sponsorships for Bitcoin).  Coinbase just got another 25 millionUSD in venture, I'm not  saying it's impossible but I am saying Invictus doesn't have anywhere near enough money, so it's a terribly inefficient way to spend it.

What Coinbase has done with Andreesen Horowitz we will achieve with my VC/accelerator/incubator contacts. I'm waiting for Techstars (Accelerator program) to respond to my last email. They partner with SVB and there may be a possibility to still get banking done through SVB. Else we will try and take another route. Just don't draw this entire operation off because SVB has closed their doors for now. I will call a few other Start-up friendly banks on Monday, like Square 1. I will keep you posted on what they say.

I actually think that this will be a useful way to invest Angelshares in an outside project that has potential to influence the output of Invictus' projects. What I ask for is enough money to bootstrap the initial operation (PTS<->Fiat trading platform and the incorporation), to get the required numbers on board in order to close a higher financing round to take on some of the bigger challenges.
« Last Edit: January 11, 2014, 07:11:07 pm by domsch »

Offline Pocket Sand

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 118
    • View Profile
Bitcoin has only grown because of the LEGAL and COMPLIANT exchanges and businesses (coinbase/bitpay) that has brought this technology to the masses. Bitcoin only existed as a niche technology until these businesses actually have brought them to the less technology adept.

Thank you for your arguments, but the companies you mention did not begin with compliance but came to it as rules were refined to include them. Bitcoin evolved from niche technology before compliance was achieved. Those companies were able to avoid compliance long enough to acquire capital to become compliant with existing barriers to entry. These aberrations happened because they formed faster than the regulations could adapt. Use of Bitcoin is a rejection of the capital controls by state, and the state will do whatever is in their power to obstruct it. Non-compliant exchanges continue to be important. Bitcoin exists in spite of the regulations, not because of the regulations.
I don't know why you think you can just say blatant lies and treat them as truth Liberty. "Bitcoin evolved from niche technology before compliance was achieved" Compliance is still not defined by all state money transmitter laws and the companies know they have to be regulated and they go to every full measure they can to make sure they are safe and compliant.  Coinbase started with an AML policy and careful compliance to Fincen/MSB they did not start out allowing wire transfers without any details and blatant money laundering. I don't know how you got this idea that these companies just started out with these completely idealistic ideals that they were above all regulation, they instead got every compliance they were advised to and have kept away from ones that aren't "legally required" yet. The businesses are regulated and they are compliant with current laws. Thank you for your argument.

Offline AdamBLevine

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 492
    • View Profile
    • Let's Talk Bitcoin!

If we proceed and simply say "Fuck you USA" a la MtGox and don't comply with regulations we will soon see our accounts seized and operations halted. That is why I am for conducting this all within legal borders and try to acquire the licenses as soon as possible.
Bitstamp right now simply works with international wire transfers to their accounts in the UK. (They are actually registered in the UK, but I think they operate from Slovenia). We intend to take a similar approach but are focusing on getting US Banking set-up and acquire the licenses as soon as possible. A huge problem could arise in which the US requests all trading platforms to be incorporated in the US, work with a US bank and get the required licenses. If we work on getting all this done prior such a hypothetical, but very likely, regulation, we will be ahead and trading would continue without any difficulties.

And I need to emphasize this again: Initially we will be able to operate WITHOUT these licenses

The only problem with your plan is Mt.Gox spends a huge amount of money on lawyers and compliance professionals.  You are assuming they're just bad actors, but that's not true.  The problem is in an environment lacking solid rules, the best you can do with your compliance effort is to make a bet at what you think it'll be.  That's crazy. 

You can try this however you'd like, I'm just saying please consult with a US attorney who knows the Bitcoin startup space before you commit to a business model that requires licenses in the US.

That is also how Coinbase did it and still does it. They entered a grey area and are doing fine as of now, but they are trying to get everything sorted by getting their state MTB licenses. We will take a similar approach.

Currently we are in talks with 3 lawyers from the US, Hong Kong and Germany. I'm still trying to work on that contingency plan mentioned on the first page of the thread and on a proper incorporation strategy that allows us to target the most prominent countries first while expanding to other countries. And we have also contacted several other attorneys from Singapore, UK and Australia to plan ahead and know what will be required.

It should be interesting to hire our own General Counsel. Similar to known start-ups that have challenged laws: Airbnb(local hotel zoning laws), Uber (taxi licensing requirements), and Pinterest (posting copyrighted images). Obviously that is another long-term goal, but if this platform shows traction and we raise money from a VC I do think that there is a possibility on not only hoping for a better output on a hearing, but also actively fighting for it.

Reference: http://techcrunch.com/2014/01/04/why-startups-hire-their-own-lawyers/

Coinbase is doing fine because they have the backing of Andreesen Horowitz and the privileged-starts-only Silicon Valley Bank that isn't taking any more Bitcoin business right now (We checked, they're on "pause" right now even though we're a company that just sells sponsorships for Bitcoin).  Coinbase just got another 25 millionUSD in venture, I'm not  saying it's impossible but I am saying Invictus doesn't have anywhere near enough money, so it's a terribly inefficient way to spend it.
Email me at adam@letstalkbitcoin.com

Offline domsch

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 82
    • View Profile

If we proceed and simply say "Fuck you USA" a la MtGox and don't comply with regulations we will soon see our accounts seized and operations halted. That is why I am for conducting this all within legal borders and try to acquire the licenses as soon as possible.
Bitstamp right now simply works with international wire transfers to their accounts in the UK. (They are actually registered in the UK, but I think they operate from Slovenia). We intend to take a similar approach but are focusing on getting US Banking set-up and acquire the licenses as soon as possible. A huge problem could arise in which the US requests all trading platforms to be incorporated in the US, work with a US bank and get the required licenses. If we work on getting all this done prior such a hypothetical, but very likely, regulation, we will be ahead and trading would continue without any difficulties.

And I need to emphasize this again: Initially we will be able to operate WITHOUT these licenses

The only problem with your plan is Mt.Gox spends a huge amount of money on lawyers and compliance professionals.  You are assuming they're just bad actors, but that's not true.  The problem is in an environment lacking solid rules, the best you can do with your compliance effort is to make a bet at what you think it'll be.  That's crazy. 

You can try this however you'd like, I'm just saying please consult with a US attorney who knows the Bitcoin startup space before you commit to a business model that requires licenses in the US.

That is also how Coinbase did it and still does it. They entered a grey area and are doing fine as of now, but they are trying to get everything sorted by getting their state MTB licenses. We will take a similar approach.

Currently we are in talks with 3 lawyers from the US, Hong Kong and Germany. I'm still trying to work on that contingency plan mentioned on the first page of the thread and on a proper incorporation strategy that allows us to target the most prominent countries first while expanding to other countries. And we have also contacted several other attorneys from Singapore, UK and Australia to plan ahead and know what will be required.

It should be interesting to hire our own General Counsel. Similar to known start-ups that have challenged laws: Airbnb(local hotel zoning laws), Uber (taxi licensing requirements), and Pinterest (posting copyrighted images). Obviously that is another long-term goal, but if this platform shows traction and we raise money from a VC I do think that there is a possibility on not only hoping for a better output on a hearing, but also actively fighting for it.

Reference: http://techcrunch.com/2014/01/04/why-startups-hire-their-own-lawyers/

Offline Liberty

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 23
    • View Profile
Bitcoin has only grown because of the LEGAL and COMPLIANT exchanges and businesses (coinbase/bitpay) that has brought this technology to the masses. Bitcoin only existed as a niche technology until these businesses actually have brought them to the less technology adept.

Thank you for your arguments, but the companies you mention did not begin with compliance but came to it as rules were refined to include them. Bitcoin evolved from niche technology before compliance was achieved. Those companies were able to avoid compliance long enough to acquire capital to become compliant with existing barriers to entry. These aberrations happened because they formed faster than the regulations could adapt. Use of Bitcoin is a rejection of the capital controls by state, and the state will do whatever is in their power to obstruct it. Non-compliant exchanges continue to be important. Bitcoin exists in spite of the regulations, not because of the regulations.

Offline luckybit

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2921
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: Luckybit
I'm with it. I think the key to getting community support is offering a good crowd funding bargain.
If you're going to seek investment via crowd funding you have to offer some promise of a return on investment and that part is going to be difficult initially. Neo Bee seems to be doing a good job as a payment network and they were crowd funded so it's possible but it's hard.

I think something like Bitshares really needs a fiat -> BTS exchange.

Neo Bee is doing a good job because they are a full reserve bank. They are more solvent and traditional than the fractional reserve banks that regulations exist for. They bypassed most of the regulatory obstacles. The profits of a fractional reserve banking system had driven full reserve banking out of the market. Neo Bee will do well because they stand alone as people lose confidence in fractional reserve banking and the fiat that they are based upon.

DACs have similar advantages being unmanned businesses. Some of them will go on to be immensely profitable and as technology advances they will only become more efficient. Human run businesses will not be able to compete with them in the long term.

It is still up to us to negotiate with the larger finance and banking community. They present some rules they want or expect our community to comply with and whether those rules make sense or are problems to be solved later. What we can do now is codify some rules of our own which we would want businesses to follow if they use our DACs, our software, our hardware, or anything we create which could be of value to them. Since we are in a position to set rules, while you start of course with the social consensus license which applies to any entity which legally wants to use the software produced by that license, there are many other possible licenses which all can be used to defend the community. Some licenses are more defensive, some are more offensive, some are aggressive and some aren't.

The strategy I propose is that free speech be used to protect the DAC community and ecosystem.  Free speech could take the form of legal documents which protect the little guy from being exploited by the big guy, or which promote decentralization. For example it could be a legally formal tradition for us to favor the more decentralized solutions and we can easily take that principle and others like it and set up a certification system where the community certifies certain DACs as being compliant and other DACs as not being compliant as a way to protect the community from hostile DACs which promote centralization in the name of compliance, politics, or some profit scheme.

Legal speech just like writing software are both represented under the free speech umbrella. Free speech is what can defend the community and the DAC community at the core has to be a free speech community. The moment we start censoring ourselves and stifling innovation in favor of compliance or profit is when we lose the disruptive and innovative essence.
I feel like eventually if bitshares are mainstays in the altcoin world, then one of the big exchanges bitpay/ coinbase will begin implementing it into their operations. 

However, I do see where this idea would be crucial 5 or 6 years down the line, just skeptical about its viability and benefits today.

Centralized big exchanges implementing it isn't as good as a bunch of little exchanges doing it. It's the same problem with https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=406152.0

We should try to find a way to do it where it's franchised in a way and not centralized into one jurisdiction. I don't know how to decentralize it but we should at least see if it's possible to do it because centralization should be the last resort for us rather than the first. Can we do a decentralized fiat -> BTS exchange which is compliant?

BTC global has an interesting scheme which we should look into. It is decentralized and could work but of course I'm no lawyer.
Quote
Providing a solution, BTC Global has announced today what they call “Massive Parallel Licensing”. Last month we wrote about BTC Global and their ambitious plans for the future (Living in the Future Today). Centered around their Uruguay based exchange, BTC.UY, BTC Global is seeking to create a multi-service bitcoin company that includes merchant solutions, secure storage facilities, digital currency conversions, and consulting services. With its team situated around the world, BTC Global considers itself a ‘true’ distributed startup. Utilizing the same methodology of leveraging its team’s knowledge and resources from around the globe that it is using to operate BTC Global, the company wants to do the same thing for bitcoin regulation.

Mauro Betschart, CEO & Co-Founder, BTC Global
Mauro Betschart, CEO & Co-Founder, BTC Global
Massive Parallel Licensing (MPL) is a partnership program that is part franchising and part crowdsourcing, and which BTC Global believes will provide a solution to “regulatory issues in the United States and worldwide facing bitcoin”. In their prepared statement, BTC Global explained that “the highest hurdle for entrepreneurs interested in launching a Bitcoin exchange business is the significant international and local regulatory requirements.” They added that “it is estimated that an investment of over $10 million would be required to reach total legal compliance in all the U.S. 50 states alone.” To solve this problem, MPL will allow bitcoin operators to partner with BTC Global, and leverage each other’s regulatory infrastructure and resources.
http://forexmagnates.com/compliance-through-alliance-btc-global-introduces-crowdsourced-bitcoin-regulation/
http://bitcoinmagazine.com/5233/btcglobal-commoditizing-the-bitcoin-exchange/
« Last Edit: January 11, 2014, 06:21:32 pm by luckybit »
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline AdamBLevine

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 492
    • View Profile
    • Let's Talk Bitcoin!

If we proceed and simply say "Fuck you USA" a la MtGox and don't comply with regulations we will soon see our accounts seized and operations halted. That is why I am for conducting this all within legal borders and try to acquire the licenses as soon as possible.
Bitstamp right now simply works with international wire transfers to their accounts in the UK. (They are actually registered in the UK, but I think they operate from Slovenia). We intend to take a similar approach but are focusing on getting US Banking set-up and acquire the licenses as soon as possible. A huge problem could arise in which the US requests all trading platforms to be incorporated in the US, work with a US bank and get the required licenses. If we work on getting all this done prior such a hypothetical, but very likely, regulation, we will be ahead and trading would continue without any difficulties.

And I need to emphasize this again: Initially we will be able to operate WITHOUT these licenses

The only problem with your plan is Mt.Gox spends a huge amount of money on lawyers and compliance professionals.  You are assuming they're just bad actors, but that's not true.  The problem is in an environment lacking solid rules, the best you can do with your compliance effort is to make a bet at what you think it'll be.  That's crazy. 

You can try this however you'd like, I'm just saying please consult with a US attorney who knows the Bitcoin startup space before you commit to a business model that requires licenses in the US.
Email me at adam@letstalkbitcoin.com

Offline domsch

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 82
    • View Profile
I support this as a decentralized version that operates in whatever jurisdiction in the world is most advantageous to the purposes of the DAC.  If you tell me you want to spend DAC money on licenses in the US, something has gone horribly awry and we are not appreciating the flexibility a DAC grants you for things like this.

Think Bitstamp - Huge US customer base, in Slovenia

This is something I had talked about with Daniel. To make this clear for everyone: This project will not be a DAC per se (at least not for the next 12 - 18 months). As of now, I (and others) do not know how to handle this in a decentralized way that will allow us to comply with the law and get everything that is required for us to operate.
The biggest issue with all this will be to obtain banking (for deposits/withdrawals) within the US. The licenses can by acquired through partnerships with businesses who are already licensed (Look at Kraken for example) or by directly obtaining them. Obviously that is very long process and not even Coinbase has their MTB license as of now (they do have an MSB license though) - but they are working on it. And lastly, our resources are focused on building up the platform and work on legality/expansion.

All this would not be possible if we start out operating as a DAC. Getting a bank or partnering with another company (or obtaining the licenses) requires security and assurance. The grey legality of DAC's currently will make attempting to get a bank account nearly impossible as banks are scarcely allowing crypto-currency services to open accounts as is. The added risk that they may run in to major legal problems between our company being a DAC and dealing in crypto-currencies will hardly seem worth the risk for any bank.
To be clear, I am not against DAC - I am an advocate and want to support the project with as much as I can. I just don't think that we will be able to handle this project in a decentralized manner that accomplishes our goal of creating an easy to use and fast trading platform that complies with the law. Once we have some clarity we can definitely transform this into a proper DAC.


My concession to the community was it to set-up a 20% DAC Development Fund instead of honoring them with a 20% stake in the operation. That is the best I can offer to help support the community and award developers of DAC's with the required funding to start launch their operation. So we help DAC's get funded, and additionally help them with the adoption/promotion internally (through our platform) and externally through other medium.


If we proceed and simply say "Fuck you USA" a la MtGox and don't comply with regulations we will soon see our accounts seized and operations halted. That is why I am for conducting this all within legal borders and try to acquire the licenses as soon as possible.
Bitstamp right now simply works with international wire transfers to their accounts in the UK. (They are actually registered in the UK, but I think they operate from Slovenia). We intend to take a similar approach but are focusing on getting US Banking set-up and acquire the licenses as soon as possible. A huge problem could arise in which the US requests all trading platforms to be incorporated in the US, work with a US bank and get the required licenses. If we work on getting all this done prior such a hypothetical, but very likely, regulation, we will be ahead and trading would continue without any difficulties.

And I need to emphasize this again: Initially we will be able to operate WITHOUT these licenses

Offline Bitcoinfan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 240
    • View Profile
What difference does it make.  Once you buy any crypocurrency your already in a frictionless market.  Buying bitcoins means you can easily exchange for any DAC.  And vice-versa.  Bitcoin is by itself taking care of the regulatory hurdles for us.  I do like the idea, and am openly entertaining it, but there is a part of me that says doing this will drive attention from governments when a time DACs need to be incubated-- there is something to say governments will want to restrict and legislate  formation of enterprises.  Is our vision to build something different from the financial system in place today?

I feel like eventually if bitshares are mainstays in the altcoin world, then one of the big exchanges bitpay/ coinbase will begin implementing it into their operations. 

However, I do see where this idea would be crucial 5 or 6 years down the line, just skeptical about its viability and benefits today. 

Offline Liberty

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 23
    • View Profile
I'm with it. I think the key to getting community support is offering a good crowd funding bargain.
If you're going to seek investment via crowd funding you have to offer some promise of a return on investment and that part is going to be difficult initially. Neo Bee seems to be doing a good job as a payment network and they were crowd funded so it's possible but it's hard.

I think something like Bitshares really needs a fiat -> BTS exchange.

Neo Bee is doing a good job because they are a full reserve bank. They are more solvent and traditional than the fractional reserve banks that regulations exist for. They bypassed most of the regulatory obstacles. The profits of a fractional reserve banking system had driven full reserve banking out of the market. Neo Bee will do well because they stand alone as people lose confidence in fractional reserve banking and the fiat that they are based upon.

Offline Pocket Sand

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 118
    • View Profile
Compliance is a noble goal, but it can't be achieved without the absence or sacrifice of worthy values.

Do not forget that we are talking about the establishment of disruptive technologies. It is interesting to see people feel it is possible to negotiate the legal and financial obstacles that are intended to block competitors. Compliance only lasts until an anointed agency changes the rules on you. You do not achieve escape velocity by following the rules but by rendering the rules moot. None of us would have heard of Bitcoin if success depended on the ability to negotiate regulatory hurdles. Bitcoin runs full speed around the hurdles because it values the ideals of liberty more than the blessings that come from kissing the ring of those that write the rules.

You are supposed to believe it is possible to disrupt established markets by playing by the rules, because otherwise you could not be stopped. The process uses your resources against you and ultimately helps your accepted master refine and enforce the rules by which you will comply. The vicious cycle ends when rules need to be made so oppressive (to restrain competition) that people finally reject the premise that they need to be ruled over. Positive change requires someone willing to avoid the obstacles to demonstrate what is possible. Freedom is when people act with knowledge that rule makers need you more than you need them and that the benefit of the rules is an illusion with fleeting value.

Sell your conformance if you think it will benefit, but mind the cost and be mindful of the bigger picture. It seems possible now that this dream started with an absence of worthy values and therefore nothing would be lost.
This is not a project about creating a disruptive technology, it's already there in the DAC's from memorycoins, protoshares, and eventually bitshares. Your argument regarding "You do not achieve escape velocity by following the rules but by rendering the rules moot" is entirely off-centered. Bitcoin has only grown because of the LEGAL and COMPLIANT exchanges and businesses (coinbase/bitpay) that has brought this technology to the masses. Bitcoin only existed as a niche technology until these businesses actually have brought them to the less technology adept. In order for us to bring DAC's to the masses we need businesses/services that will spread the message and bring them to the average person.

Offline luckybit

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2921
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: Luckybit

i understand in the united state getting appropriate licenses will be v expensive and exhaust I3 resources. I was also thinking maybe set it up outside the states, slovenia maybe a good option not sure about taxes though, im sure we can do some good research about the location if this idea receives serious backing.

It is our intention to acquire the licenses as soon as possible. As I had mentioned in the update, we are working on obtaining the licenses right now through partnerships with companies that already possess them.  By no means am I asking for $7m in bonds here and I3 to get us a CCO.

The business will be incorporated in several locations so we can assure faster and cheaper trading. Think of it: ACH wire transfers (for the US) and SEPA (within the EU) are resolved mostly within a day and have little to no fees. International wire transfers can cost up to $35 and can take several days to resolve. Therefore it is in our focus to register the business initially in the US and EU. So think of this as Coinbase and Bitstamp combined - we are just more agile, faster and assure compliance with regulations.

I'm with it. I think the key to getting community support is offering a good crowd funding bargain.
If you're going to seek investment via crowd funding you have to offer some promise of a return on investment and that part is going to be difficult initially. Neo Bee seems to be doing a good job as a payment network and they were crowd funded so it's possible but it's hard.

I think something like Bitshares really needs a fiat -> BTS exchange.
Compliance is a noble goal, but it can't be achieved without the absence or sacrifice of worthy values.

Do not forget that we are talking about the establishment of disruptive technologies. It is interesting to see people feel it is possible to negotiate the legal and financial obstacles that are intended to block competitors. Compliance only lasts until an anointed agency changes the rules on you. You do not achieve escape velocity by following the rules but by rendering the rules moot. None of us would have heard of Bitcoin if success depended on the ability to negotiate regulatory hurdles. Bitcoin runs full speed around the hurdles because it values the ideals of liberty more than the blessings that come from kissing the ring of those that write the rules.

You are supposed to believe it is possible to disrupt established markets by playing by the rules, because otherwise you could not be stopped. The process uses your resources against you and ultimately helps your accepted master refine and enforce the rules by which you will comply. The vicious cycle ends when rules need to be made so oppressive (to restrain competition) that people finally reject the premise that they need to be ruled over. Positive change requires someone willing to avoid the obstacles to demonstrate what is possible. Freedom is when people act with knowledge that rule makers need you more than you need them and that the benefit of the rules is an illusion with fleeting value.

Sell your conformance if you think it will benefit, but mind the cost and be mindful of the bigger picture. It seems possible now that this dream started with an absence of worthy values and therefore nothing would be lost.

I think it should at least be attempted, but it should not be attempted at the cost of our principles. Innovation is more important than compliance, but compliance is how you get liquidity through mainstream adoption. The mainstream banking industry has a community which we have to negotiate and they present to us rules we must follow to obtain their support? So we present to them the rules they must follow to obtain support of our community. So far we have the social consensus, but there are other principles we could codify into the legal language in order to protect the integrity of the DAC community.

We want compliance but we also need to formally declare our rules so that any foreign entity who interacts with us in the legal space has to follow the community standards rather than impose their standards on the community. Compliance should therefore go both ways. We comply with them but they comply with us. This will require negotiation (tit for tat, comply with KYC but they must accept the social consensus and adhere to the principle of decentralization).

Decentralization and privacy should not be on the table. Those are absolutes. Innovation should also not be stifled or suppressed for any political reason. If the planet is not going to explode then we should innovate.



« Last Edit: January 11, 2014, 05:57:21 pm by luckybit »
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads