Cryptocurrencies

[Longnose]

21 hours ago, jfan said:

Thanks @Longnose That was a really interesting perspective. I purchased the entangled life book. Seems promising.

 

 

Glad you enjoyed it. It really was a very fascinating view on BTC that i had never heard or considered before. 

[rkbabang]

25 minutes ago, Longnose said:

 

Glad you enjoyed it. It really was a very fascinating view on BTC that i had never heard or considered before. 

You really should read the book I mentioned before “Softwar” he goes deep into this type of thing from an evolutionary and primordial economics perspective.   I was just telling @Dave86ch on Twitter (because he quotes from it a lot) that this book has changed my view of the world more than anything I’ve read in decades. And I average 80-100 books/year.

[changegonnacome]

 

 

[Dave86ch]

13 hours ago, rkbabang said:

You really should read the book I mentioned before “Softwar” he goes deep into this type of thing from an evolutionary and primordial economics perspective.   I was just telling @Dave86ch on Twitter (because he quotes from it a lot) that this book has changed my view of the world more than anything I’ve read in decades. And I average 80-100 books/year.

 

I started reading it based on your recommendation, even though I had heard about it earlier. It appears we have similar perspectives on our thesis.

Thank you for the excellent suggestion. I appreciate it immensely, even setting aside the Bitcoin matters.

 

I like to acquire notions that expand my knowledge of our behavior as human animals.

It's like reading the script code where the truth is rooted.

Edited July 13, 2023 by Dave86ch

[rkbabang]

3 hours ago, Dave86ch said:

 

I started reading it based on your recommendation, even though I had heard about it earlier. It appears we have similar perspectives on our thesis.

Thank you for the excellent suggestion. I appreciate it immensely, even setting aside the Bitcoin matters.

 

I like to acquire notions that expand my knowledge of our behavior as human animals.

It's like reading the script code where the truth is rooted.

 

 

No problem.  I guess we're even.   I read "The Network State" based on your recommendation and it was excellent.  It didn't have the transformation effect on my thinking the way Softwar did, but it was an excellent analysis of the current situation in the world.  I've recommended it to quite a few people since I've read it. 

 

[Xerxes]

17 hours ago, rkbabang said:

You really should read the book I mentioned before “Softwar” he goes deep into this type of thing from an evolutionary and primordial economics perspective.   I was just telling @Dave86ch on Twitter (because he quotes from it a lot) that this book has changed my view of the world more than anything I’ve read in decades. And I average 80-100 books/year.

this one from 2013 ?

 

[rkbabang]

27 minutes ago, Xerxes said:

this one from 2013 ?

 

LOL, no!

 

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0BW358F37

 

Edited July 13, 2023 by rkbabang

[rkbabang]

I just noticed it's out of print on Amazon.   I wonder if it was a limited print run?  There's one on ebay.  https://www.ebay.com/itm/295578626098 It's $55, but I paid $35 for mine on amazon back in May, so that isn't too outrageously priced, especially with free shipping.  Hopefully they'll print more of these, I think it's an important book.

 

[TwoCitiesCapital]

1 hour ago, Xerxes said:

this one from 2013 ?

 

 

Surely the intended title was "software"?

[TwoCitiesCapital]

Ripple wins case against SEC for XRP sales to public, but XRP sales to institutions are still considered an unregistered offering of securities/investment contract?!?!

 

How does the identity of the buyer change whether or not what is being bought or sold os a security? 

 

If you sell to an institution, it's a security. If that institution turns around and dumps those exact same tokens on the retail public via an exchange, it's NOT a security?!?! 

 

What is wrong with these people? 

[rkbabang]

23 minutes ago, TwoCitiesCapital said:

Ripple wins case against SEC for XRP sales to public, but XRP sales to institutions are still considered an unregistered offering of securities/investment contract?!?!

 

How does the identity of the buyer change whether or not what is being bought or sold os a security? 

 

If you sell to an institution, it's a security. If that institution turns around and dumps those exact same tokens on the retail public via an exchange, it's NOT a security?!?! 

 

What is wrong with these people? 

 

 

Yeah, that clarifies things.  Maybe they should change what something is based on the race and/or sex of the buyer too.

[Gregmal]

Let’s just get Ripple to an IPO. That would be great. 

[changegonnacome]

59 minutes ago, TwoCitiesCapital said:

How does the identity of the buyer change whether or not what is being bought or sold os a security? 

 

It's not the identity of the buyer that changes whether its a security.....back to my earlier posts actually.....its the identity/intentions and representations (promises) made by the SELLER of THING that determines whether that THING is an investment contract or not.

 

Ripple labs in the selling of XRP to these institutions.......was involved in an illegal security offering as it met  the Howey test rule.......the implications are that pretty much every tokenomics project at inception, once it leaves the bedroom to sell a token to anybody....is engaged in a effectively a public offering of a security or investment contract. This is just another knife in the sh!tcoin business model.

 

This is huge but the crypto pump machine wants to take a small technical ruling to "da moon".....its a technical point but everybody is missing it.

 

What the judge failed to class as a security offering by Ripple labs........is the current contemporaneous XRP token, today, being sold to retail..............but it's actually a legal abstraction that folks are missing......see Ripple labs isn't selling XRP right now to the public, right? XRP trades on foreign crypto exchanges...ripple labs the target of this SEC case no longer is selling XRP to anybody!..........remember it sold XRP to institutions back in the day!......it's been castigated for that in this ruling and effectively found guilty of illegal security sales.......foreign crypto exchanges and brokers overseas today are the ones SELLING XRP to the public.....and as per this ruling if the SEC brought an enforcement action against THEM.......they are the ones that would be found guilty of selling an illegal security now.....and Ripple labs has been found innocent today of that crime....cause it isnt commiting an investment contract crime/scam with XRP.....somebody else is.

 

** Other side note.........as many know here know.......the classic sh!tcoin move.......especially for layer two projects....is you start a company to sell your sh!tcoin that is the next ethereum.....you sell the token to whoever will take it from you and raise a shit load of $$$$$ of it in an intial token offering........now you pull the Ripple move......and I seen it a bunch of time with others.......post initial token offering/sale once the money is resting in your account......you effectively create a few adjacent but unconnected companies.......you create (1) a Swiss based charity foundation....it kind of acts like a PR firm and you seed it with promotional pump money...maybe even some market making (faking) duties...it does the press and PR for the "community" (2) like Ripple labs....you also setup a 'use case' company that was kind of the story you sold investors originally to take the token....lets call it the 'killer app' company that help sell the initial token blockchain sale and of course uses the token you created as "gas" in whatever the product/solution is (3) you setup a development/consulting company.....now the 'project' is a DAO....it still really needs developers to keep the whole thing kind of working....nothing is autonomous.....software tech requires coders to fix bugs etc.....so this company is nominally a consulting company.....but really its your original companies (the one that did the intial token offering) tech development/department team...under a different LLC working on kind of 'open source' token tech....but its really your tech and nobody else is really working on it....cause you own a shit load of tokens still....its your technology.....your just claiming its not yours anymore cause there's some voting/consensus/community mechanism thats required to push changes.

 

I'll give crypto some dues......the inventiveness of human beings when presented with an oppurtunity to make a shit load of money is a sight to behold.......I just wish that same inventness/IQ in crypto was channelled into something useful as opposed to endless ponzi schemes (not everything in crypto is a ponzi some are genuine attempts at innovation.....but the level of ponzi-ism is off the charts in the space).

 

Edited July 13, 2023 by changegonnacome

[TwoCitiesCapital]

1 hour ago, changegonnacome said:

 

It's not the identity of the buyer that changes whether its a security.....back to my earlier posts actually.....its the identity/intentions and representations (promises) made by the SELLER of THING that determines whether that THING is an investment contract or not.

 

Ripple labs in the selling of XRP to these institutions.......was involved in an illegal security offering as it met  the Howey test rule.......the implications are that pretty much every tokenomics project at inception, once it leaves the bedroom to sell a token to anybody....is engaged in a effectively a public offering of a security or investment contract. This is just another knife in the sh!tcoin business model.

 

This is huge but the crypto pump machine wants to take a small technical ruling to "da moon".....its a technical point but everybody is missing it.

 

What the judge failed to class as a security offering by Ripple labs........is the current contemporaneous XRP token, today, being sold to retail..............but it's actually a legal abstraction that folks are missing......see Ripple labs isn't selling XRP right now to the public, right? XRP trades on foreign crypto exchanges...ripple labs the target of this SEC case no longer is selling XRP to anybody!..........remember it sold XRP to institutions back in the day!......it's been castigated for that in this ruling and effectively found guilty of illegal security sales.......foreign crypto exchanges and brokers overseas today are the ones SELLING XRP to the public.....and as per this ruling if the SEC brought an enforcement action against THEM.......they are the ones that would be found guilty of selling an illegal security now.....and Ripple labs has been found innocent today of that crime....cause it isnt commiting an investment contract crime/scam with XRP.....somebody else is.

 

** Other side note.........as many know here know.......the classic sh!tcoin move.......especially for layer two projects....is you start a company to sell your sh!tcoin that is the next ethereum.....you sell the token to whoever will take it from you and raise a shit load of $$$$$ of it in an intial token offering........now you pull the Ripple move......and I seen it a bunch of time with others.......post initial token offering/sale once the money is resting in your account......you effectively create a few adjacent but unconnected companies.......you create (1) a Swiss based charity foundation....it kind of acts like a PR firm and you seed it with promotional pump money...maybe even some market making (faking) duties...it does the press and PR for the "community" (2) like Ripple labs....you also setup a 'use case' company that was kind of the story you sold investors originally to take the token....lets call it the 'killer app' company that help sell the initial token blockchain sale and of course uses the token you created as "gas" in whatever the product/solution is (3) you setup a development/consulting company.....now the 'project' is a DAO....it still really needs developers to keep the whole thing kind of working....nothing is autonomous.....software tech requires coders to fix bugs etc.....so this company is nominally a consulting company.....but really its your original companies (the one that did the intial token offering) tech development/department team...under a different LLC working on kind of 'open source' token tech....but its really your tech and nobody else is really working on it....cause you own a shit load of tokens still....its your technology.....your just claiming its not yours anymore cause there's some voting/consensus/community mechanism thats required to push changes.

 

I'll give crypto some dues......the inventiveness of human beings when presented with an oppurtunity to make a shit load of money is a sight to behold.......I just wish that same inventness/IQ in crypto was channelled into something useful as opposed to endless ponzi schemes (not everything in crypto is a ponzi some are genuine attempts at innovation.....but the level of ponzi-ism is off the charts in the space).

 

 

So you're saying if I sell my Fairfax as a collectible, to someone dumb enough to buy it as such, that Fairfax stock seizes to be a security?

 

Which would also imply that I owe no capital gains on the transaction, right? All because the buyer bought it under certain representations that may, or may not have been, true? 

 

The "reasonable" belief of profit comes from the legal entitlements of what is being bought/sold. Not because of some verbal/nonverbal understanding of the parties participating in the transaction. If that is the case, every single transaction for any single thing needs to be reviewed by a court to determine if its a security based on the "understanding" of the parties involved. 

 

This is such a stupid interpretation - the identity of the buyer determines their acumen which in turn determines if the underlying thing being bought and sold is a security rather than any characteristic of what is being bought and sold itself. 

Edited July 13, 2023 by TwoCitiesCapital

[TwoCitiesCapital]

2 hours ago, rkbabang said:

 

 

Yeah, that clarifies things.  Maybe they should change what something is based on the race and/or sex of the buyer too.

 

Seeing as most crypto buyers are men, are we to understand that they likely know more about the tokens? And thus sales to men are securities and sales to women are not? 

Edited July 13, 2023 by TwoCitiesCapital

[TwoCitiesCapital]

On 6/7/2023 at 3:00 PM, TwoCitiesCapital said:

 

Well, unless if they sold them, they're quickly heading to $0. 

 

Probably still sitting on multiples of the initial investment, but unless it they let go at peak panic yesterday when it was down to $47-48, the stock has really only been moving up since then. 

 

This options are now only ~0.50 from a few bucks. 

 

Glad I added to COIN yesterday at $48ish. This was pretty well telegraphed. Even when COIN sued the SEC a few weeks back, it was widely seen as a pre-emptive move to front run an SEC lawsuit against them. Why the market knew that a lawsuit was coming and still reacted this way when announced is beyond me. 

 

Now out of all the COIN that I added @ $48. A double in a month.

[changegonnacome]

1 hour ago, TwoCitiesCapital said:

So you're saying if I sell my Fairfax as a collectible, to someone dumb enough to buy it as such, that Fairfax stock seizes to be a security?

 

Which would also imply that I owe no capital gains on the transaction, right? All because the buyer bought it under certain representations that may, or may not have been, true? 

 

The "reasonable" belief of profit comes from the legal entitlements of what is being bought/sold. Not because of some verbal/nonverbal understanding of the parties participating in the transaction. If that is the case, every single transaction for any single thing needs to be reviewed by a court to determine if its a security based on the "understanding" of the parties involved. 

 

This is such a stupid interpretation - the identity of the buyer determines their acumen which in turn determines if the underlying thing being bought and sold is a security rather than any characteristic of what is being bought and sold itself. 

 

I'm not saying it @TwoCitiesCapital I'm helping you to understand what the judge is telling the SEC and Ripple based on the law and the facts of this particular case. Folks are running away with themselves on this ruling with only passing understanding of what the judge has said.

 

I know 'ConTelegraph' is running with the headline "XRP not a security"....but its a misinterpretation of what the judge ruled.

 

Simply:

 

(1) He ruled XRP was an investment contract at inception and at the moment it was sold to institutional investors for $$$$, it doesnt matter who it was sold to....at the time it was being sold it was an ilegal security because a US entity sold it and US entity bought and the thing being sold met the Howey test. It just so happened that in this case the XRP token offering first passed through the hands of institutions i.e. Ripple minted tokens and sent them first to institutions for $$$$....not people for $$$$$....

 

It helps solidify the concept, if it were even needed, that basically ALL token offerings begin life as ilegal securities. 

 

(2) Ripple labs TODAY is not guilty of on-going securities fraud due to 'jurisdictional issues' as XRP is being sold on secondary foreign exchanges outside the jurisdiction of the SEC and not to 'anyone' in the USA. Therefore in this case which is the SEC vs. Ripple Labs......Ripple labs cant be found guilty of on-going US securities law violations because no US securities are being currently sold by them to US persons......all the selling is being done by exchanges in foreign countries to foreign people....and the SEC has no jurisdiction there. Note XRP is not available on Coinbase for example.

 

Heads up.....in terms of your $COIN position the second point is the most salient in terms of future value there........the XRP not a security headline.......exists only because XRP is not available on any US domiciled exchanges....i.e. todays rulling is not helpful in terms of $COIN's litigation problems......Coinbase's majority business model is selling ilegal securities from a US domiciled entity to US based persons.

Edited July 13, 2023 by changegonnacome

[jfan]

5 hours ago, rkbabang said:

LOL, no!

 

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0BW358F37

 

https://aul.primo.exlibrisgroup.com/permalink/01AUL_INST/u9e6on/alma995901882406836

 

Out of print. But the above link connects with an online copy.

[KJP]

1 hour ago, changegonnacome said:

 

I'm not saying it @TwoCitiesCapital I'm helping you to understand what the judge is telling the SEC and Ripple based on the law and the facts of this particular case. Folks are running away with themselves on this ruling with only passing understanding of what the judge has said.

 

I know 'ConTelegraph' is running with the headline "XRP not a security"....but its a misinterpretation of what the judge ruled.

 

Simply:

 

(1) He ruled XRP was an investment contract at inception and at the moment it was sold to institutional investors for $$$$, it doesnt matter who it was sold to....at the time it was being sold it was an ilegal security because a US entity sold it and US entity bought and the thing being sold met the Howey test. It just so happened that in this case the XRP token offering first passed through the hands of institutions i.e. Ripple minted tokens and sent them first to institutions for $$$$....not people for $$$$$....

 

It helps solidify the concept, if it were even needed, that basically ALL token offerings begin life as ilegal securities. 

 

(2) Ripple labs TODAY is not guilty of on-going securities fraud due to 'jurisdictional issues' as XRP is being sold on secondary foreign exchanges outside the jurisdiction of the SEC and not to 'anyone' in the USA. Therefore in this case which is the SEC vs. Ripple Labs......Ripple labs cant be found guilty of on-going US securities law violations because no US securities are being currently sold by them to US persons......all the selling is being done by exchanges in foreign countries to foreign people....and the SEC has no jurisdiction there. Note XRP is not available on Coinbase for example.

 

Heads up.....in terms of your $COIN position the second point is the most salient in terms of future value there........the XRP not a security headline.......exists only because XRP is not available on any US domiciled exchanges....i.e. todays rulling is not helpful in terms of $COIN's litigation problems......Coinbase's majority business model is selling ilegal securities from a US domiciled entity to US based persons.

 

I do not think this is a correct summary. 

 

The judge appears to have ruled that the sales of XRP by Ripple to Institutional Buyers pursuant to written contracts qualified as "investment contracts," and thus securities under 15 USC 77b(a)(1), because the marketing materials and statements Ripple's promoters made to those Buyers would have led a reasonable person to believe that Ripple would use the proceeds of those sales to develop applications and other uses of the XRP Ledger that would result in greater demand for XRP and thus an increase in its price.  See Slip Op. at 19 ("Based on the totality of circumstances, the Court finds that reasonable investors, situated in the position of the Institutional Buyers, would have purchased XRP with the expectation that they would derive profits from Ripple’s efforts."); id. at 21 ("Clearly, t h e Institutional Buyers would have understood that Ripple was pitching a speculative value proposition for XRP with potential profits to be derived from Ripple’s entrepreneurial and managerial efforts.").  That understanding -- derived from what a reasonable person would infer from Ripple's statements -- satisfied Howey's third prong that the buyer of the alleged "security" must be "led to expect profits solely from the efforts from the promoter or a third party."  Id. at 11 (quoting Howey).

 

In contrast, the judge concluded that Ripple's "programmatic" sales of XRP on exchanges to buyers who did not know who the seller was did not satisfy this test.  Because buyers on a exchange do not know the seller, they could not have known that the proceeds of their purchases would go to Ripple.  See Slip op. at 23.  Thus, according to the judge, buyers on an exchange would not reasonably expect that any profits they earned would be derived from Ripple's efforts:  Id. at 24.  In addition, there was no evidence that Ripple marketing to exchange buyers in the same way that it marketed the XRP sales it made to Institutional Buyers:

 

"There is no evidence that a reasonable Programmatic Buyer, who was generally less sophisticated as an investor , shared similar “understandings and expectations” and could parse through the multiple documents and statements that the SEC highlights, which include statements (sometimes inconsistent) across many social media platforms and news sites from a variety of Ripple speakers (with different levels of authority ) over an extended eight - year period. Therefore , having considered the economic reality and totality of circumstances , the Court concludes that Ripple’s Programmatic Sales of XRP did not constitute the offer and sale of investment contracts."  Slip op. at 25.

 

So, the case does not turn on institutional versus individual buyers as some headlines have suggested and some on this thread have suggested.  Nor does were the programmatic sales not unlawful because of any "jurisdictional" limitation.  Nor is it correct to say that the judge ruled that "XRP was an investment contract at inception."  Nor is it correct to say that this ruling means than "all token offerings begin life as illegal securities."  Rather, whether or not any particular sale of XRP by Ripple was an "investment contract," and thus a security, turned on the surrounding circumstances of each sale, including what reasonable investors would have understood they were getting themselves into based on the representations that Ripple made (or didn't make) to them.

 

To state the obvious, the above is just my take.  Nobody should rely on it for legal advice.

 

I should also note that this is just one district judge's opinion.  Ultimately, this will be decided by the appellate courts, unless Congress amends the Securities Act to clarify things.

 

Here is a link to the slip opinion: https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/bk1n1qn1tgscrcrrfldr8/SEC-v.-Ripple-Ruling-on-Motions-for-Summary-Judgment.pdf?dl=0&rlkey=cjyfdw5rl58diqxyi3qfgix7s

 

 

 

Edited July 13, 2023 by KJP

[changegonnacome]

1 hour ago, KJP said:

So, the case does not turn on institutional versus individual buyers as some headlines have suggested and some on this thread have suggested. 

 

Totally agree - at each point of a transaction (to whom doesn't matter) the question of Howey is applied.

 

Ripple's capital raising initial token offering....to whom doesn't matter....was an act of selling unregistered securities......promises and representations were made by token promoters to prospective purchasers of tokens which created a profit expectation through the endeavors of others.

 

Back to my earlier posts.......excluding bitcoin & dogecoin.....I'm yet to come across a token that didn't start life as a unregistered securities offering.

 

The judge today has restated that basic point........token/utility token whateve you call them.......these tokens dont will themselves into existence....they have founders, programmers, entrpeuners behind them......the very act of pushing them out into the world by 'selling' them for money is in 99.9% of cases indistinguishable from selling a security.

 

At the heart of every token/crypto - there is this - lets call it the 'original sin' for fun cause thats kind of what it is (unless registered with SEC of course!)

 

1 hour ago, KJP said:

Nor does were the programmatic sales not unlawful because of any "jurisdictional" limitation.  Rather, the legality of each sale turned on the surrounding circumstances of each sale, including what reasonable investors would have understood they were getting themselves into based on the representations that Ripple made (or didn't make) to them.

 

Yes the jurisdictional element is potentially overreach on my part........albeit the case is being brought by the US SEC against Ripple labs for securities violations in the US........and all the on-going sales of XRP are happening on foreign exchanges to 'non-US persons'. Not sure the judge need concern himself too much beyond this point and in some respects his ruling doesn't. He does not see Ripple marketing XRP for sale and making promises, creating profit expectations to make the sales of these tokens....this fails the howey test.

 

The point is interesting and will be tested in the courts later and was not part of this case.........but Ripple Labs is not out there marketing/selling XRP to people today...absolutley...this is where the SEC didn't secure the 'win' so to speak.......because Ripple Labs was deemed not to be actively engaged in on-going securities sales/fraud.......what the judge didnt opine on because the foreign exchanges arent a target of this case.....is that its very likely that the securities law violations happening with XRP today are being done by the exchanges/brokers themselves......so while Ripple Labs>XRP fails Howey today.......Exchanges selling XRP are where the Howey violations are occurring contemporaneously. Not part of this case obviously. This is SEC vs. Ripple......and the judge has ruled on that basis.

 

Problem for Coinbase out of this case is two fold:

 

(1) ICO/ITO's are just clearly securities offerings.....and thats been tested enough now...new supply of US ICO's/ITO's is toast. Everybody knows now...via Ripple and many others....that your selling securities when your selling newly minted tokens out of your bedroom and into the big bad world.

(2) This case potentially allows programmatic token structures to allow the token issuer like Ripple Labs (post-initial token offering) to sidestep Howey....but in doing so......the exchange/broker offering for sale the token now becomes liable for securities fraud....as the investment contract (token sale) between the exchange and client is where the 3rd leg of howey gets satisfied.

 

Again Coinbase is in trouble here albeit the judge in this case wasnt asked by the SEC to judge whether the foreign exchanges were committing securities fraud.....the SEC asked the judge to rule on wether Ripple Labs is committing on-going securities fraud via programmatic selling/creation of XRP. He ruled they werent, lets see what appeals say as I question this, but in my view then if this case were to stand as final law....it becomes clear that the exchanges selling XRP are the ones that would satisfy the 3rd leg of howey test. In that exchanges/brokers (same thing in crypto) by marketing/selling their services and in the selling of tokens are the ones engaged in securities fraud. 

 

In the future you could see the SEC deciding to take a two pronged approach to securities fraud case like this to stop the sale of an ilegal security token and bring enforcement........where to 'bring down' an unregistered security token with programmatic characteristics.....you need to bring something akin to a conspiracy case where you name both the token issuer and the exchanges now selling the token as co-defendants. This is how SEC Ripple/exchange if this judgement stood as a precedent moving forward would be tackled. Their efforts combined (issuer + exchange/broker) would constitute an on-going unregistered securities offering. My early two cents.

Edited July 13, 2023 by changegonnacome

[changegonnacome]

Also importantly missed by the crypto shill headlines - is that Ripple's 'fair notice' defense was rejected completely by the judge. Fair notice basically says the current laws are too vague such that one can’t hope to know if one is breaking the law or not….the argument in crypto has always been “this is highly innovative asset class.....we need 'new' securities laws as the old laws can’t govern the activity.

 

The fair notice defense is therefore that your constitutional right to due process is violated if a law cannot be adequately & sensibly applied to an activity as there was no means by which you could have understood you were breaking the law cause of a failure of legislative rule making.

 

The judge ruled that the securities laws on the books are clear and can be clearly apply to ITO's and ICO's and Ripple's fair notice defense that they couldn't have known what they were doing in 2017 was illegal by selling tokens cause the law is vague/undefined….this argument was resoundingly rejected.
 

Again Howey applies and is applicable.

 

Short version - no new securities laws are required by crypto as it pertains to INTIAL token or coin offerings for sure.
 

Howey applies and 99.9% of ITO/ICO’s sold to whomever (institutional/retail) are unregistered securities.

 

US based ICO/ITO sales to VC’s or the general Joe scmoh out there are toast.

Edited July 14, 2023 by changegonnacome

[Castanza]

“Deep dive” but think Blackrock will control BTC. It’s amazing how little some of these talking heads know about BTC. 

[Dave86ch]

They don't understand game theory. It's that simple.

[Dave86ch]

 

 

Edited July 26, 2023 by Dave86ch

[TwoCitiesCapital]

12 minutes ago, Dave86ch said:

 

 

 

I'm massively overweight then

 

And this is massively more than the 1-2% I've seen touted elsewhere. 

 

Just imagine 5-10% of the hundred trillion in global wealth moving to 21 million Bitcoin....would equate to 250-500k/coin assuming none are lost. 

Edited July 26, 2023 by TwoCitiesCapital