Author Topic: Legal Council about BTS and No-action  (Read 17557 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline crypto4ever

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 103
    • View Profile
thanks to a certain fraudulent operation, BitShares was mentioned several times already in official SEC documents. it's no longer a matter of whether they have bts on their radar, but when they decide to take a closer look in it. pro-activity is needed ASAP in my opinion.

edit: they seized funds and have a wallet on BitShares by the way.

I think you'd be better to say "allegedly fraudulent". No one knows 100% before the case is heard in court.

Secondly, as far as having a wallet or already on the radar is fine.  The problem is they can't file suit against computer code.

Yes, legal advice is still necessary, as long as it is managed by a team, maybe the foundation, the committee away from the forums (like a task force setup for this purpose) and in private.

The worker proposal has the right idea. Just fine tune it a little better considering what was discussed in this thread is all we have to do.

If they're on a witch hunt, first they'll try to roast the first witch they see.  Which is this "allegedly fraudulent" organization apparently. That could take 1-2 years before a final judgment is determined and appeals have been filed.

So as long as this is done right, and carefully, adjusting the proposal slightly to take these important discussions into account, I have no doubt it will pass as a worker.

« Last Edit: February 09, 2018, 02:41:16 am by crypto4ever »

Offline fav

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4278
  • No Pain, No Gain
    • View Profile
    • Follow Me!
  • BitShares: fav
thanks to a certain fraudulent operation, BitShares was mentioned several times already in official SEC documents. it's no longer a matter of whether they have bts on their radar, but when they decide to take a closer look in it. pro-activity is needed ASAP in my opinion.

edit: they seized funds and have a wallet on BitShares by the way.

Offline Brekyrself

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 512
    • View Profile
Appears the SEC letter is the issue here.  @xeroc what about splitting apart the worker and going for the legal opinion letter now and hashing out the SEC letter later on?

Offline crypto4ever

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 103
    • View Profile
At some point regulators will come looking again, the more BitShares grows the more likely. Bittrex is just the first who needs a legal opinion. What's the alternative? Just waiting and hoping no one will notice BitShares?

It's like walking up to a lion's den, and asking the lion "I'd kind of like to ask you whether or not I'm the type of thing you are interested in eating"

Why pester the lion when he has the whole jungle to take care of, which is keeping him busy already.  Did you want to be the next thing he pounces on?

Some people might say "What if the lion isn't interested in eating you? Isn't that good?"

Some people might say "If they lion says yes, and starts chasing us, we can run away or find ways to defend ourself"... That's fine to try that but if you're unlucky you'll probably wonder why you went and spoke to a lion in the first place.

I think the proposal should be changed.

1. There is no contact made to SEC or any intention to contact them

2. There is NO LETTER sent to any government agency

3. Legal Advice is sought, and the details are kept among the Bitshares foundation members.  They could be the ones to decide what to do with that information.

"Client-lawyer" privilege is where clients may discuss things with their lawyers and their legal strategies privately.  You can't do that in a decentralized environment without revealing your legal poker hand.  Which is a guaranteed losing situation for the client, if you openly disseminate where you lack ground to everyone, and anyone, including your adversary.

Now, I think specific tokens would be more apt to be securities than the platform itself.  But if you were to squeeze government agencies, it's too easy for them to publish a response letter and say "yes, we believe BTS is a type of security".... (even if they don't have to prove anything in court).  They could cherry pick answers from "this case" and that "case" that may scare you and the public. (Even after you got your day in court many months later).  By this time though, it's too late.  You've already created a domino effect of FUD by arguing with the SEC in the first place.

I think the likelihood of this handled incorrectly are much more damaging to bitshares  than the possible benefit you are looking for...

So, no, I won't insta-vote this legal proposal as it is written in... I wish I could, but I cannot support it.

« Last Edit: February 08, 2018, 07:52:38 pm by crypto4ever »

Offline sschiessl

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 662
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: sschiessl
How can a SEC saying "BTS is not a security and we won't screw them up" have a negative impact?

He means if the SEC says that BTS is a security.

Offline sschiessl

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 662
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: sschiessl
I understand that concern, but driving decisions through fears will not get us further. Of course, a negative statement would have atomic impact, but the legal council that was chosen has experience and necessary contacts there.

At some point regulators will come looking again, the more BitShares grows the more likely. Bittrex is just the first who needs a legal opinion. What's the alternative? Just waiting and hoping no one will notice BitShares?

I would say this worker is a much needed pro-active action!

Offline Ravid

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 84
    • View Profile
How can a SEC saying "BTS is not a security and we won't screw them up" have a negative impact?

Offline crypto4ever

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 103
    • View Profile
Most people look at this from the benefit view.  If the SEC agrees they are not securities, it could do so many good things.

What if the opposite happens?  The letter [saying that BTS is a security] could cause the opposite effect and hurt your investments.

That's probably why people aren't insta-voting this in.  We need more discussion I guess.
« Last Edit: February 08, 2018, 07:23:34 pm by crypto4ever »

Offline sschiessl

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 662
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: sschiessl
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!

Offline Brekyrself

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 512
    • View Profile
bumping this up, what is holding people back from voting this in?

Offline Brekyrself

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 512
    • View Profile
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?!

@bitcrab 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 xeroc

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12922
  • ChainSquad GmbH
    • View Profile
    • ChainSquad GmbH
  • BitShares: xeroc
  • GitHub: xeroc
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 ...

@crypto4ever 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 @bitcrab 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


Offline Chris4210

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 431
  • Keep Building!
    • View Profile
    • www.payger.com
  • BitShares: chris4210
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 Brekyrself

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 512
    • View Profile
@crypto4ever 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 @bitcrab have to say as I do not see their votes?

Offline crypto4ever

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 103
    • View Profile
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 »