1 AGS worth more than 1 PTS

[jas]

Do you want to get out this terrible future legal position by selling me all your shares now?

[Darkbane]

what would be the worst case / consequences in this respect (legal issues developing in a negative way)?

the worst case scenario is someone files a lawsuit against them for fraud, misrepresentation, or legal claim to assets of the company because of how this whole scenario has been handled... then all the "donations" from AGS/PTS people become part of the lawsuit and awarded as a judgement to those who sued (well whats left of it)... all it takes is one disgruntled person willing to take a step with a lawyer hungry enough to realize, they've got millions, and the lawyer will profit millions... thats generally all it takes, they can paint a picture of how "its different", however legally the court system follows printed law, not "how it should be" law... and that is what worries me... instead of getting things in order, they intend to jump in feet first and hope they don't hit a rock in the water... money has a way of putting blinders on people...

best case scenario, things go well and everything comes true...

reality of it, will probably be a mix of these two...

the big question being, how much of each and who loses more...

[Markus]

I'm betting that bitshares will be successful enough to afford lots of justice.

Yeah, at least as much as HSBC can:
http://money.cnn.com/2012/12/10/news/companies/hsbc-money-laundering/index.html

[santaclause102]

what would be the worst case / consequences in this respect (legal issues developing in a negative way)?

[onceuponatime]

I'm guessing this is the part where your lawyers would say not to answer any of his questions about if you are legally allowed to accept donations and if you are a non-profit or incorporated company...

You are obviously very "legally aware" so it ought to be clear to you that it would be foolish indeed for "mere" engineers to run on in this forum about all the legal theory involved in this emerging international field of law.  You ask a lot of great questions.  We have taken all the steps we have been advised by counsel to do so far and have a growing team of the best lawyers, economists and accountants we can find working on it.  We expect to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on this in the coming months and many millions before we are done.  This legal research is part of the body of work we are contributing to the development of this industry and we plan to share it as part of the DAC developer's course we have planned for the Beyond Bitcoin conference in Las Vegas this summer.

Let's let the lawyers and the regulators iterate a while and we'll keep this forum posted on the progress they are making.

This reminds me of an old friend of mine (let's call him "Smith") who felt that he had been hard done by in a business deal. He went to the best lawyer he could find in the field and said: "I want justice"

The lawyer took off his spectacles and polished them during a long and pregnant pause, puts them back on, stares at my friend and then said:

"Well, Mr. Smith, just how much justice can you afford?"

************************************************************

I'm betting that bitshares will be successful enough to afford lots of justice.

[Darkbane]

I'm guessing this is the part where your lawyers would say not to answer any of his questions about if you are legally allowed to accept donations and if you are a non-profit or incorporated company...

You are obviously very "legally aware" so it ought to be clear to you that it would be foolish indeed for "mere" engineers to run on in this forum about all the legal theory involved in this emerging international field of law.  You ask a lot of great questions.  We have taken all the steps we have been advised by counsel to do so far and have a growing team of the best lawyers, economists and accountants we can find working on it.  We expect to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on this in the coming months and many millions before we are done.  This legal research is part of the body of work we are contributing to the development of this industry and we plan to share it as part of the DAC developer's course we have planned for the Beyond Bitcoin conference in Las Vegas this summer.

Let's let the lawyers and the regulators iterate a while and we'll keep this forum posted on the progress they are making.

Since invictus and employees will have inside information about DAC releases and upcoming events that others will not be aware of, will you bar invictus and related from making purchases based upon that information to their benefit? or from using these "donations" to buy ahead of the curve... will any and all invictus purchases be made public so all may speculate equally... or will you make a release and bar employees and invictus for making purchases for the next 72 hours following public notice...

P.S. I've got a thousand more question... but if the lawyers say pay me 1000 PTS to go away and sign a contract never to talk again, I would consider that a great investment heh... I'll fly to you to sign the papers...

[Stan]

I'm guessing this is the part where your lawyers would say not to answer any of his questions about if you are legally allowed to accept donations and if you are a non-profit or incorporated company...

You are obviously very "legally aware" so it ought to be clear to you that it would be foolish indeed for "mere" engineers to run on in this forum about all the legal theory involved in this emerging international field of law.  You ask a lot of great questions.  We have taken all the steps we have been advised by counsel to do so far and have a growing team of the best lawyers, economists and accountants we can find working on it.  We expect to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on this in the coming months and many millions before we are done.  This legal research is part of the body of work we are contributing to the development of this industry and we plan to share it as part of the DAC developer's course we have planned for the Beyond Bitcoin conference in Las Vegas this summer.

Let's let the lawyers and the regulators iterate a while and we'll keep this forum posted on the progress they are making.

[Darkbane]

Is bitcoin "money"? Is bitcoin a "commodity" Is bitcoin both, or neither, or something else entirely? That hasn't been settled yet, because it is something entirely new that did not exist before. The debate rages on, but there seems to be some consensus forming around the idea that bitcoin is a distributed ledger system as very astutely presented by Trace Mayer (google his youtube interviews).

On the same note what Invictus is doing is entirely new, but you insist on trying to fit it into your old definitions of how business is done. It won't work that way. You are trapped in old concepts - causing yourself great frustration attempting the impossible. Let go of your concepts of how this "should" be done to fit your investing experience and expectations.

I absolutely understand this, however you can't just "let go of old thinking" when it comes to legal matters... whats written in law is what matters legally... and I see legal matters as the single largest threat to this... they are accepting donations, without declaring they are a non-profit company... this now binds them legally to for-profit business models and each state they have accepted donations from, nevermind foreign countries, have its own laws in how you are legally allowed to accept donations for anything... this is why websites that take donations for startup projects have a vast legal team to tackle state by state issues as many will require certain forms of paperwork along with each and every donations if its a penny or a million...

I'm not trying to make them fit me, I'm trying to make my investment fit them... its absolutely a risk, however its not unreasonable to expect to define that risk to make a judgement... I understand maybe this isn't right for me in your eyes, or possibly their eyes either... however if they claim to be as transparent and open as possible with these "donations", its not unreasonable at all for me to expect some actual legal backing with that as they accepted them... they didn't have to accept the donations by in doing so they obligated themselves to legal constraints in this country... so its not so much I should stop being the old fuddy duddy and don't ruin all the fun, its I should question and challenge them to answer the questions in a way that can be proven as they want to be open correct?

if being open and transparent means answering tough questions, thats what you do, if people challenge the logic and process, but its sounds and reasonable, it will be possible to thwart that attempt to raise concern... however if they are not able to quench the concern then there is even more reason to ask questions... like are they a non-profit company... since they are not, how will donations be handled when its tax time and they must report a profit... they said they would not make a profit and it would all go to the community... some of this is nit picking the details but some of it is quite valid...

if they are not for profit... who are the shareholders?

""The first 10,000 AGS are set-aside proportionally for Keyhotee Founders.  Invictus Innovations shareholders are not eligible.  Donations to Keyhotee after Dec 24, 2013 at Midnight GMT don't count.""

this is another quote of a moderator... so its closer tied to invictus... yet they claim its not tied... do you see where I am going with all this questioning... one day its one thing another day its another... and the whole system gets changed midstream... and then we're called donators, stockholders, shareholders, and then not...

""2) AngelShares is much closer tied to Invictus and we encourage other DAC development teams to form their own funding method or perhaps simply copy the AngelShares model.""

So we are "earning" bitshares ags... or are we donating... or as a patron are we customers buying... as a competition is it a lottery... are we earning/buying/winning BitShares AGS or "shares"... see all the conflicts in one statement...

""How to earn BitShares AGS?
Beginning New Year’s Day 2014, there will be 10,000 new AGS available each day in a new patron competition lasting 200 days. 5,000 AGS will be available to BitShares PTS holders daily. 5,000 AGS will be available to Bitcoin holders daily. That's ultimately 2,000,000 total shares, just like BitShares PTS.""

these are just a SMALL FRACTION of all the statements that legally contradict each other and send us back and forth... and every state in america has its own laws reguarding every single one of those types of transactions...

you refer to people as "OUR INVESTORS"... are they your investors or PTS investors...

""Instead of a small group of successful investors slowly pondering how to grow the industry, we
were looking at a whole army of investors yelling “I’m in!” Then it occurred to us: this is a
decentralized movement developing decentralized products and services. Why were we trying to
centralize our investors? Why can’t the owner of a single ProtoShare be a venture capitalist if
she want’s to? We should be sharing our ideas with everyone. So we are using this newsletter. ""

[onceuponatime]

If we were to buy back PTS with AGS funds then we would only do so after discussing with the forum and in a very public / controlled way.   We will not secretly buy back PTS with AGS funds.   I still maintain that it is not a good idea and thus not likely to happen.

See this worries me... in one moment invictus call us stockholders... and then we're donators on another page... even making the statement "buy back PTS" implies it is company stock/value... so legally we own invictus and PTS is the method in which we claim ownership... so my next question is, can I get a copy of the minutes from the last board meeting, and when is the shareholder meeting planned... because I've got questionnnnsssssss.

The confusion comes because we are developing crypto-equities which are nothing more than crypto-currencies backed by a built-in profitable business.  But this is nothing but a metaphor - a polymorphic way of looking at the exact same thing.  Bitcoin itself can be viewed as a crypto-equity in an unprofitable (but appreciating) unmanned business where bitcoins can be viewed metaphorically as stock in a value-transmission company.

Invictus is a private corporation and none of its shares are involved in any of this.  We develop and release free open source software that others are free to use to implement ordinary crypto-currencies that are backed by much more than speculative thin-air.  They are backed by the services they perform and you can metaphorically view them as crypto-equities for that reason.

The reason we use the unmanned company metaphor is to better point out the value of embedding a profit-generating component into a crypto-currency.  But you could also accurately refer to them simply as next-generation crypto-currencies if you prefer.

When we use the term "shareholders" we are talking about holders of shares/coins in a crypto-currency/equity - not in Invictus.

Well it sounds great when you try to explain it as this is your vision... my worry is your vision doesn't match up with the legal system and the way you have proceeded to create this value backing up the currency, because if the shares have no value in the company than using your logic the company has no value to back the cryptocurrency... so while it might be nice to say and think it, legally you have sold shares in your company by accepting "donations" in exchange for shares, so it is not an actual donation since you are selling a product... so either you're selling us a product, or you are selling shares in the company... which you and many others have refered to many time by calling us stockholders...

believe me I don't want to come off as the hard ass who is trying to make you fail... I've expressed I want this to succeed because I believe this really could create a huge impact on things, and to be at the beginning is ideal in anything... however the way you throw words around loosely they legally have meaning and consequence when you're representing yourself and your company... and I've got to say you guys have opened the door wide on legalities... and I'm sure much like your lawyers have recommended you don't actually host any future DACs and simply "sell" the software to generate company income, you can't undo what has already been done... you've already accepted the money for shares in the company... how those shares are expressed is open to interpretation but they are bring distributed and/or sold...

let's tackle the donations... are they donations... are you legally allowed under law to accept donations... or are you selling a product to individuals... that should be cleared up immediately... you are a for-profit incorporation correct? are you actually incorporated?

Is bitcoin "money"? Is bitcoin a "commodity" Is bitcoin both, or neither, or something else entirely? That hasn't been settled yet, because it is something entirely new that did not exist before. The debate rages on, but there seems to be some consensus forming around the idea that bitcoin is a distributed ledger system as very astutely presented by Trace Mayer (google his youtube interviews).

On the same note what Invictus is doing is entirely new, but you insist on trying to fit it into your old definitions of how business is done. It won't work that way. You are trapped in old concepts - causing yourself great frustration attempting the impossible. Let go of your concepts of how this "should" be done to fit your investing experience and expectations.

[Darkbane]

I'm guessing this is the part where your lawyers would say not to answer any of his questions about if you are legally allowed to accept donations and if you are a non-profit or incorporated company...

[Darkbane]

If we were to buy back PTS with AGS funds then we would only do so after discussing with the forum and in a very public / controlled way.   We will not secretly buy back PTS with AGS funds.   I still maintain that it is not a good idea and thus not likely to happen.

See this worries me... in one moment invictus call us stockholders... and then we're donators on another page... even making the statement "buy back PTS" implies it is company stock/value... so legally we own invictus and PTS is the method in which we claim ownership... so my next question is, can I get a copy of the minutes from the last board meeting, and when is the shareholder meeting planned... because I've got questionnnnsssssss.

The confusion comes because we are developing crypto-equities which are nothing more than crypto-currencies backed by a built-in profitable business.  But this is nothing but a metaphor - a polymorphic way of looking at the exact same thing.  Bitcoin itself can be viewed as a crypto-equity in an unprofitable (but appreciating) unmanned business where bitcoins can be viewed metaphorically as stock in a value-transmission company.

Invictus is a private corporation and none of its shares are involved in any of this.  We develop and release free open source software that others are free to use to implement ordinary crypto-currencies that are backed by much more than speculative thin-air.  They are backed by the services they perform and you can metaphorically view them as crypto-equities for that reason.

The reason we use the unmanned company metaphor is to better point out the value of embedding a profit-generating component into a crypto-currency.  But you could also accurately refer to them simply as next-generation crypto-currencies if you prefer.

When we use the term "shareholders" we are talking about holders of shares/coins in a crypto-currency/equity - not in Invictus.

Well it sounds great when you try to explain it as this is your vision... my worry is your vision doesn't match up with the legal system and the way you have proceeded to create this value backing up the currency, because if the shares have no value in the company than using your logic the company has no value to back the cryptocurrency... so while it might be nice to say and think it, legally you have sold shares in your company by accepting "donations" in exchange for shares, so it is not an actual donation since you are selling a product... so either you're selling us a product, or you are selling shares in the company... which you and many others have refered to many time by calling us stockholders...

believe me I don't want to come off as the hard ass who is trying to make you fail... I've expressed I want this to succeed because I believe this really could create a huge impact on things, and to be at the beginning is ideal in anything... however the way you throw words around loosely they legally have meaning and consequence when you're representing yourself and your company... and I've got to say you guys have opened the door wide on legalities... and I'm sure much like your lawyers have recommended you don't actually host any future DACs and simply "sell" the software to generate company income, you can't undo what has already been done... you've already accepted the money for shares in the company... how those shares are expressed is open to interpretation but they are bring distributed and/or sold...

let's tackle the donations... are they donations... are you legally allowed under law to accept donations... or are you selling a product to individuals... that should be cleared up immediately... you are a for-profit incorporation correct? are you actually incorporated?

[bytemaster]

If we were to buy back PTS with AGS funds then we would only do so after discussing with the forum and in a very public / controlled way.   We will not secretly buy back PTS with AGS funds.   I still maintain that it is not a good idea and thus not likely to happen.

See this worries me... in one moment invictus call us stockholders... and then we're donators on another page... even making the statement "buy back PTS" implies it is company stock/value... so legally we own invictus and PTS is the method in which we claim ownership... so my next question is, can I get a copy of the minutes from the last board meeting, and when is the shareholder meeting planned... because I've got questionnnnsssssss.

We are not selling stock in Invictus and PTS gives you no rights as a stockholder (we never use that phrase).   We did not sell PTS into the market, it was mined into existence with a social contract that is beyond our ability to break even if we were to be killed tomorrow.   Anyone can take our code and honor the PTS social contract when the launch a new DAC.   Just as easily someone could take our code and not honor the PTS social contract but the market would likely reject it without a solid justification and foundation.

What we are doing boils down to the following:

1) We are building FREE software
2) We are accepting donations to build this FREE software
3) We are making RECOMMENDATIONS on how to USE our free software
4) We provide FREE support for people who use our software according to our RECOMMENDATIONS.

Our free software happens to be a blockchain-based business template that anyone can launch an initialize ownership however they like... however, due to the large community of donors and an even larger community of honorable people who recognize that our recommendations were fair and reasonable most people will probably use our software for good.

[Stan]

If we were to buy back PTS with AGS funds then we would only do so after discussing with the forum and in a very public / controlled way.   We will not secretly buy back PTS with AGS funds.   I still maintain that it is not a good idea and thus not likely to happen.

See this worries me... in one moment invictus call us stockholders... and then we're donators on another page... even making the statement "buy back PTS" implies it is company stock/value... so legally we own invictus and PTS is the method in which we claim ownership... so my next question is, can I get a copy of the minutes from the last board meeting, and when is the shareholder meeting planned... because I've got questionnnnsssssss.

The confusion comes because we are developing crypto-equities which are nothing more than crypto-currencies backed by a built-in profitable business.  But this is nothing but a metaphor - a polymorphic way of looking at the exact same thing.  Bitcoin itself can be viewed as a crypto-equity in an unprofitable (but appreciating) unmanned business where bitcoins can be viewed metaphorically as stock in a value-transmission company.

Invictus is a private corporation and none of its shares are involved in any of this.  We develop and release free open source software that others are free to use to implement ordinary crypto-currencies that are backed by much more than speculative thin-air.  They are backed by the services they perform and you can metaphorically view them as crypto-equities for that reason.

The reason we use the unmanned company metaphor is to better point out the value of embedding a profit-generating component into a crypto-currency.  But you could also accurately refer to them simply as next-generation crypto-currencies if you prefer.

When we use the term "shareholders" we are talking about holders of coins/shares in a crypto-currency/equity - not in Invictus.

[Darkbane]

PTS != I3 stock (which presumably will exist at some point)...
Get used to the concept of being a "shareholder" in a DAC, which has no employees or board of directors

thats the problem... the PTS is just a commodity in the eyes of the government (for now)... hence why nobody wants to cash folks out of coins into USD (well on an exchange in the USA)... to avoid the regulations that would come with a fully blown exchange/stock market... but since they are now mixing their words and saying things like dividends and distributions, and accepting "donations" in exchange for shares, they are turning PTS/AGS into company shares... so we won't own the DAC, we'll own invictus (you can try to separate PTS as something other than invictus, but legally they will be bound together as one)... and they will have to have a board of directors and meetings if they are incorporated already...

[toast]

PTS != I3 stock (which presumably will exist at some point)...
Get used to the concept of being a "shareholder" in a DAC, which has no employees or board of directors