Legal Council about BTS and No-action

[ME1995]

I have a lot of issues with the advice and the remarks made from Mr. Hernard

'As to whether BTS is a security for U.S. securities law purposes, there appear to be very good arguments to make that a cryptocurrency with a substantial volume of coins in circulation and substantial daily volume of trades – indicia of having a true market value that is independent of the efforts of a group of employees or founders – is not a security.'

This is false. These arent the indicia of a security. Bitshares WILL be considered a security as a DAO or DAC gives parties voting rights - the same voting rights that got this proposal through. The
fact that he does not cover this is negligent on his part. There are further reasons why Bitshares WILL undeniably be considered a Security however I believe him skipping over this is the most
aggregious.

Spending BTS to send the no-action letter will be wasteful. The firm clearly have no idea how Bitshares or DAC's in general are run.

I could recommend an alternative law firm based in Australia - they have a lot of experience dealing with SEC issues regarding FinnTech and Cryptos generally.

@xeroc is there any way I can put forward a firm after Paul Hastings LLP contract expires? I don't think they have BTS' best interests in mind.

[xeroc]

The BBF has entered in an agreement with them and that means that they have responsabilities.
Still, thank you for your input and I will forward it to the respective parties to take it seriously.
The promised me to put this in their feed back to PaulHastings.
I expect the next spokesperson report to entail how this is answered.

In the future, it would be much more helful to send messages like those staight to the BitShares Blockchain
Foundation ([email protected]) to not spread uncertainty.

Most people in here do understand the difference between DAO and BTS and the BBF will make sure that
the SEC understands them too. That said, if you ask me, the DAO ruling doesn't apply for BTS.

[ME1995]

I dont think they will overlook fundamental components of a security such as the DAO's right to vote and receive dividends through ICO's such as Bits.Farm.

Are you handling the matter Xeroc? Or is there somewhere/way I can track what is going on with respect to the legal issues underpinning BTS? I feel as if a third party
that isnt Paul Hastings LLP or yourself, with legal expertise, could aid in pursuing the best outcome.

[xeroc]

I dont think they will overlook fundamental components of a security such as the DAO's right to vote and receive dividends through ICO's such as Bits.Farm.

In contrast to DAO, the BTS token does not receive dividends. If it would, then it would be a security for sure - but it doesn't and hopefully never automatically receive dividends.
If someone wants to throw/drop money at someone, then that's fine, but doesn't make it a security IMHO - would ETH be a security because of the fork of ETC, or Bitcoin because BTC holders have also received BitcoinCash?

Are you handling the matter Xeroc? Or is there somewhere/way I can track what is going on with respect to the legal issues underpinning BTS? I feel as if a third party
that isnt Paul Hastings LLP or yourself, with legal expertise, could aid in pursuing the best outcome.

The BitShares Blockchain Foundation handles this. It reports on a regular basis on bitshares.foundation and on steem.

You are free to get in contact with them, but I would highly advise you introduce yourself properly and underpin your claim that
an established company like PaulHastings isn't a good choice