Author Topic: Legal Council about BTS and No-action  (Read 3804 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline xeroc

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12623
  • ChainSquad GmbH
    • View Profile
    • ChainSquad GmbH
  • BitShares: xeroc
  • GitHub: xeroc
Legal Council about BTS and No-action
« on: January 30, 2018, 07:53:41 am »
New Worker Proposal

Proposer: BitShares Blockchain Foundation

About
With this worker, we (the bitshares blockchain foundation) would like to fund this project to seek legal clarity and presentation for BTS holders and regulators.

Throughout the last couple months, we have been repeatedly approach about core aspects of BitShares and its governance token BTS that have been presented publicly in an inaccurate and unfavorable manner. This often resulted in ambiguity and uncertainty that has held back some businesses from working with or on the BitShares Blockchain and could well have been a reason for lack of ecosystem growth throughout the last years.

Additionally to an opinion letter of a prestigious legal council, we also seek a non-action letter by the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the prototype for many regulators in the world.

Read more
http://www.bitshares.foundation/worker/budget/2018-02-legal-council-bts
Give BitShares a try! Use the http://testnet.bitshares.eu provided by http://bitshares.eu powered by ChainSquad GmbH

Offline Brekyrself

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 498
    • View Profile
Re: Legal Council about BTS and No-action
« Reply #1 on: January 30, 2018, 09:11:56 am »
Thank you for putting this together and running with it.  Lets get this voted in and moving along.

Offline abit

  • Committee member
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 3212
    • View Profile
    • Steemit Blog
  • BitShares: abit
  • GitHub: abitmore
Re: Legal Council about BTS and No-action
« Reply #2 on: January 30, 2018, 11:24:37 am »
Something wrong with "Duration   2018/02/15 - 2018/07/30 (12 months)".
BTS account: abit
BTS committee member: abit
BTS witness: in.abit

Offline xeroc

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12623
  • ChainSquad GmbH
    • View Profile
    • ChainSquad GmbH
  • BitShares: xeroc
  • GitHub: xeroc
Re: Legal Council about BTS and No-action
« Reply #3 on: January 30, 2018, 02:56:08 pm »
Something wrong with "Duration   2018/02/15 - 2018/07/30 (12 months)".
Thanks, it was meant to be 6 months.
Give BitShares a try! Use the http://testnet.bitshares.eu provided by http://bitshares.eu powered by ChainSquad GmbH

Offline crypto4ever

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 102
    • View Profile
Re: Legal Council about BTS and No-action
« Reply #4 on: January 30, 2018, 03:44:10 pm »
I make a suggestion that two different legal firms work on this, even if it doubles the worker proposal to $700,000

Putting all your eggs in one basket (Paul Hastings LLP) doesn't give the benefit of a second opinion.


Having two legal firms working on the same issue gains the NEW benefit that the best course of action (as determined by the foundation or BTS votes) now becomes possible once you have two different opinions.  You can have each firm review each other's recommendation and get the best answer out of the two.

Since the SEC has federal jurisdiction, I recommend each legal firm being in different states.

Competing legal firms will ultimately give their best resources and attention to the matter.  This is why massive corporations don't just have multiple lawyers around the table, but different firms as well.

https://www.hg.org/article.asp?id=36943

In the end, the legal firm with the best performance and best legal direction would yield more business from Bitshares in the future.

We get second opinions from doctors, car mechanics, etc.. It is not unheard of (and only diligent) to get second opinions from an additional law firm.

Even the Supreme Court has multiple judges for these reasons.

If you are in agreement, please voice your support.
« Last Edit: January 30, 2018, 04:21:47 pm by crypto4ever »

Offline Chris4210

  • Global Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 416
  • Running for BitShares Committee Member
    • View Profile
    • www.payger.com
  • BitShares: chris4210
Re: Legal Council about BTS and No-action
« Reply #5 on: January 30, 2018, 04:13:44 pm »
Thank you BitShares Blockchain Foundation for pushing this matter forward. I will vote for your worker.

Crypto4ever has a good point that a second law firm could be helpful to get a more defined result.

What will happen with the leftover funds for this worker? Is this worker in BTS or BitUSD?
Vote Chris4210 for Committee Member http://bit.ly/1WKC03B! | www.Payger.com - Payments + Messenger | www.BitShareshub.io - Community based fanpage for the BitShares Blockchain

Offline xeroc

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12623
  • ChainSquad GmbH
    • View Profile
    • ChainSquad GmbH
  • BitShares: xeroc
  • GitHub: xeroc
Re: Legal Council about BTS and No-action
« Reply #6 on: January 31, 2018, 02:03:24 pm »
I make a suggestion that two different legal firms work on this, even if it doubles the worker proposal to $700,000

Putting all your eggs in one basket (Paul Hastings LLP) doesn't give the benefit of a second opinion.


Having two legal firms working on the same issue gains the NEW benefit that the best course of action (as determined by the foundation or BTS votes) now becomes possible once you have two different opinions.  You can have each firm review each other's recommendation and get the best answer out of the two.

Since the SEC has federal jurisdiction, I recommend each legal firm being in different states.

Competing legal firms will ultimately give their best resources and attention to the matter.  This is why massive corporations don't just have multiple lawyers around the table, but different firms as well.

https://www.hg.org/article.asp?id=36943

In the end, the legal firm with the best performance and best legal direction would yield more business from Bitshares in the future.

We get second opinions from doctors, car mechanics, etc.. It is not unheard of (and only diligent) to get second opinions from an additional law firm.

Even the Supreme Court has multiple judges for these reasons.

If you are in agreement, please voice your support.

Thank your for your input, I will forward it to the corresponding people that deal with this.
However, I don't see the need to pay twice as much until we have an actual course of action.
It is also that PaulHastings has a very good reputation in the space, it's not that BTS is the only crypto in their customers list. I'll still forward the issue.

What will happen with the leftover funds for this worker? Is this worker in BTS or BitUSD?
I recommend you read through the proposal and the corresponding description of a "budget worker".
Give BitShares a try! Use the http://testnet.bitshares.eu provided by http://bitshares.eu powered by ChainSquad GmbH

Offline abit

  • Committee member
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 3212
    • View Profile
    • Steemit Blog
  • BitShares: abit
  • GitHub: abitmore
Re: Legal Council about BTS and No-action
« Reply #7 on: January 31, 2018, 09:03:19 pm »
What's the difference between this worker and the "201710-compliance" worker? It seems the latter has been voted in now.
BTS account: abit
BTS committee member: abit
BTS witness: in.abit

Offline crypto4ever

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 102
    • View Profile
Re: Legal Council about BTS and No-action
« Reply #8 on: January 31, 2018, 09:12:13 pm »
However, I don't see the need to pay twice as much until we have an actual course of action.

The link I provided explained that, but I'll quote the important part for your reference.

Quote
The client might want to learn about alternative options to the recommendation by his or her primary attorney.

(This would include an alternative course of action)

Once you've started on a course of action, by then, it is often too late.  You can't reverse time.

I'll give an example.  One law firm may suggest applying to the SEC for their interpretation of whether or not BTS tokens are considered securities.

An opposite law firm might suggest, no don't do that.  Once you do that, you're giving them subject matter jurisdiction right from the beginning by appealing to them for their opinion.  You'd be better to wait for the SEC to make the initial contact, and that way you can defend yourself.  You can then use the fact you never even contacted the SEC because they was never any speculation or intent that the tokens were even in a grey area from the very start.  (Which will side with your mens rea -- a legal term with significance)

However you end up cheating yourself by starting a course of action without a second opinion.

Law firms have a primary principal... to generate revenue to keep their law firms doing well. Their secondary principal is to follow the first principal while still helping their clients the best they can.  The legal profession is a business like any other business.  It must always generate a profit otherwise it can't help anyone.

By realizing this as a client, you can make use of this primary principal by feeding that principal by retaining two different law firms and creating a small competition between them.  Competition will yield you higher accurate answers when both firms are in agreement. When there is  difference of opinion between 2 law firms, it gives the client the opportunity to select the best recommendation based on what each law firm comes back with.

Trusting a reputable law firm, doctor, or mechanic is good, but in the end, they are still humans who are prone to mistakes.  Having more than one opinion limits those unintentional mistakes.

Go into this with 2 law firms.  The benefits will be obvious in the long run.

I'm not going to continue to speak about this issue.  I have a friend who has recommended these things and is not part of this forum.  His suggestions feel this has said enough.  Those of you who support this should say something.
« Last Edit: January 31, 2018, 09:20:16 pm by crypto4ever »

Offline Brekyrself

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 498
    • View Profile
Re: Legal Council about BTS and No-action
« Reply #9 on: February 01, 2018, 06:48:18 am »
[member=30441]crypto4ever[/member] does bring up good points about the SEC letter.  Could some of the funds be used for a second opinion on the SEC letter? 

I'd like to hear what some of the large proxies such as [member=23]bitcrab[/member] have to say as I do not see their votes?

Offline Chris4210

  • Global Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 416
  • Running for BitShares Committee Member
    • View Profile
    • www.payger.com
  • BitShares: chris4210
Re: Legal Council about BTS and No-action
« Reply #10 on: February 01, 2018, 08:00:49 am »
What will happen with the leftover funds for this worker? Is this worker in BTS or BitUSD?
I recommend you read through the proposal and the corresponding description of a "budget worker".

Thank you for the lead to http://www.bitshares.foundation/worker/ . It is good to see how the BitShares Foundation is handling the different worker models. I especially liked http://www.bitshares.foundation/accounting .
Vote Chris4210 for Committee Member http://bit.ly/1WKC03B! | www.Payger.com - Payments + Messenger | www.BitShareshub.io - Community based fanpage for the BitShares Blockchain

Offline xeroc

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12623
  • ChainSquad GmbH
    • View Profile
    • ChainSquad GmbH
  • BitShares: xeroc
  • GitHub: xeroc
Re: Legal Council about BTS and No-action
« Reply #11 on: February 01, 2018, 03:40:59 pm »
What's the difference between this worker and the "201710-compliance" worker? It seems the latter has been voted in now.
Yhea, that came as a surprise to us as well .. we will discuss how to deal with that situation going forward.
The original proposal wasn't as "clear" as the new one is, mostly because the situation was foggy and there has been an NDA that prevented our company
from going too deep into details. Now we know much better about what is needed.
Please do not vote for the old worker but instead consider approving the new one ...

[member=30441]crypto4ever[/member] does bring up good points about the SEC letter.  Could some of the funds be used for a second opinion on the SEC letter? 

I'd like to hear what some of the large proxies such as [member=23]bitcrab[/member] have to say as I do not see their votes?
Indeed, very good points. I'll make sure the people involved will see those. Thanks

Give BitShares a try! Use the http://testnet.bitshares.eu provided by http://bitshares.eu powered by ChainSquad GmbH

Offline Brekyrself

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 498
    • View Profile
Re: Legal Council about BTS and No-action
« Reply #12 on: February 05, 2018, 03:28:49 pm »
What's holding people back from voting on this?  The worker should provide real world businesses with assurance they will not run into legal issues utilizing the bts blockchain?!

[member=23]bitcrab[/member] What is the feeling on your side of the world for this worker?


We need this to get back onto exchanges such as Bittrex who is trying to be as legitimate as possible!
https://cointelegraph.com/news/major-cryptocurrency-exchange-bittrex-to-add-usd-trading-reopen-new-user-sign-ups
« Last Edit: February 05, 2018, 04:27:36 pm by Brekyrself »

Offline Brekyrself

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 498
    • View Profile
Re: Legal Council about BTS and No-action
« Reply #13 on: February 07, 2018, 06:08:30 pm »
bumping this up, what is holding people back from voting this in?

Online sschiessl

Re: Legal Council about BTS and No-action
« Reply #14 on: February 07, 2018, 07:16:03 pm »
Agreed! Such a letter is a door opener to start talking to.the big exchanges to list BTS, e.g. Kraken. Also it will have big impact being the first crypto to actually have such a letter.

Voted!