3 ms·

> [1] https://www.federalreserve.gov/bankinforeg/regdcg.htm https://www.federalreserve.gov/bankinforeg/regdcg.htm > Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. This is not

> [1] https://www.federalreserve.gov/bankinforeg/regdcg.htm https://www.federalreserve.gov/bankinforeg/regdcg.htm > Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. This is not legal nor securities advice. Look, we know. Only armchair financial enthusiasts use those disclaimers, and you've made it painfully obvious and its a bit contrived. Federal Reserve regulation D is not the SEC's regulation D that you talked about. Regulation D is not an applicable exemption, neither is Filecoin's use of it, because the secondary markets where people are inevitably going to trade them have to be registered broker dealers to legally trade things that admit they are securities. Unlike private equity, there is nothing that functionally prevents people from trading cryptographic tokens, so it is better for now that the tokens themselves make sure they are NOT securities, not just 'exempt securities'. No matter what Filecoin did, there is still a major infrastructure problem that threatens to hamper all liquidity in this space, unless tokens are structured as products and distinct from the securities market. We've been here before. The SEC tried to regulate commodities. The SEC tried to regulate commodities futures and commodities options. The SEC thought they were covered under the wording of the Securities Act of 1933 but ultimately that just made no fucking sense for commerce. So the people of this country and the representatives thereof created the CFTC. And yet again, the SEC's frameworks makes no sense for this market, where assets can functionally be like a security, like a commodity, and like a currency simultaenously. A new framework isn't out of the question. For new services and sales that happen to use cryptographic tokens, being unambiguously a product isn't out of the question. Being unambiguously a security isn't out of the question.

JumpCrisscross 9y ago
> Regulation D is not an applicable exemption, neither is Filecoin's use of it, because the secondary markets where people are inevitably going to trade them have to be registered broker dealers to legally trade things that admit they are securities Filecoin appears to be using Rule 506(c) of Regulation D, a § 4(a)(2) exemption. Also, you don't need to be a broker-dealer to issue, buy or sell unregistered securities. (You do need to be one if you're doing those things with others' securities [1].) > The SEC tried to regulate commodities. Commodities-trading regulation predates the SEC by over a decade [2]. Every time securities law were written, commodities laws were rewritten [3][4] to explicitly carve commodities out from securities laws. Both agencies compete in the swaps market, due to their shared jurisdiction over securities-based swaps [5][6], but there are deeper reasons behind the CFTC's independence than it making "no fucking sense for commerce." (The short answer has to do with geography and the competing power centers of New York and Chicago.) > A new framework isn't out of the question I agree. But it will probably take an act of Congress to do this. In the meantime, some promoters are violating the law. [1] https://www.sec.gov/reportspubs/investor-publications/divisionsmarketregbdguidehtm.html https://www.sec.gov/reportspubs/investor-publications/divisi... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grain_Futures_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grain_Futures_Act [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodity_Exchange_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodity_Exchange_Act [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodity_Futures_Trading_Commission_Act_of_1974 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodity_Futures_Trading_Comm... [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodity_Futures_Modernization_Act_of_2000 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodity_Futures_Modernizatio... [6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodd–Frank_Wall_Street_Reform_and_Consumer_Protection_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodd–Frank_Wall_Street_Reform_... Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. This is not legal nor securities advice.
- ringaroundthetx 9y ago
  in your grandparent post, you are still linking the Federal Reserve's deposit insurance regulation, while talking about the Securities Exchange Commission's exempt securities offering regulation. I still find that entertaining, let me help you https://www.sec.gov/fast-answers/answers-regdhtm.html https://www.sec.gov/fast-answers/answers-regdhtm.html Classic strawman, I wasn't claiming Regulation D required anyone to be a broker dealer to issue buy or sell an exempt unregistered security. The claim is that reselling it freely requires you to go through or be a broker dealer, unless all buyers are accredited investors.
  - JumpCrisscross 9y ago
    We've come full circle to the article's point. Barring an act of the Congress, most ICOs are conducting themselves in a way that is, under current law, illegal.
kuschku 9y ago
> Look, we know. Only armchair financial enthusiasts use those disclaimers No, anyone that doesn't want to be legally liable. If the other person could reasonably believe they have gotten legal advice, or a client-attorney relationship was establishes, then you might be liable. Before you say that this would be ridiculous to assume on an internet forum, be advised that many lawyers nowadays have websites, blogs, allow starting a client-attorney relationship over a public question board, and such situations on Reddit have existed before. Disclaimer: I am not an attorney, this is not legal advice.
- ringaroundthetx 9y ago
  > Before you say that this would be ridiculous to assume on an internet forum Why would I say this? Thanks for your contribution
- sjy 9y ago
  It is still ridiculous. Just because some lawyers take on clients over the internet doesn't mean that you need to say 'I am not a lawyer' every time you discuss a legal question online. I have never seen a case of someone being successfully (or even unsuccessfully) sued for pseudonymous, general online legal commentary.

JumpCrisscross 9y ago

> Regulation D is not an applicable exemption, neither is Filecoin's use of it, because the secondary markets where people are inevitably going to trade them have to be registered broker dealers to legally trade things that admit they are securities Filecoin appears to be using Rule 506(c) of Regulation D, a § 4(a)(2) exemption. Also, you don't need to be a broker-dealer to issue, buy or sell unregistered securities. (You do need to be one if you're doing those things with others' securities [1].) > The SEC tried to regulate commodities. Commodities-trading regulation predates the SEC by over a decade [2]. Every time securities law were written, commodities laws were rewritten [3][4] to explicitly carve commodities out from securities laws. Both agencies compete in the swaps market, due to their shared jurisdiction over securities-based swaps [5][6], but there are deeper reasons behind the CFTC's independence than it making "no fucking sense for commerce." (The short answer has to do with geography and the competing power centers of New York and Chicago.) > A new framework isn't out of the question I agree. But it will probably take an act of Congress to do this. In the meantime, some promoters are violating the law. [1] https://www.sec.gov/reportspubs/investor-publications/divisionsmarketregbdguidehtm.html https://www.sec.gov/reportspubs/investor-publications/divisi... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grain_Futures_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grain_Futures_Act [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodity_Exchange_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodity_Exchange_Act [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodity_Futures_Trading_Commission_Act_of_1974 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodity_Futures_Trading_Comm... [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodity_Futures_Modernization_Act_of_2000 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodity_Futures_Modernizatio... [6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodd–Frank_Wall_Street_Reform_and_Consumer_Protection_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodd–Frank_Wall_Street_Reform_... Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. This is not legal nor securities advice.

ringaroundthetx 9y ago
in your grandparent post, you are still linking the Federal Reserve's deposit insurance regulation, while talking about the Securities Exchange Commission's exempt securities offering regulation. I still find that entertaining, let me help you https://www.sec.gov/fast-answers/answers-regdhtm.html https://www.sec.gov/fast-answers/answers-regdhtm.html Classic strawman, I wasn't claiming Regulation D required anyone to be a broker dealer to issue buy or sell an exempt unregistered security. The claim is that reselling it freely requires you to go through or be a broker dealer, unless all buyers are accredited investors.
- JumpCrisscross 9y ago
  We've come full circle to the article's point. Barring an act of the Congress, most ICOs are conducting themselves in a way that is, under current law, illegal.

kuschku 9y ago

> Look, we know. Only armchair financial enthusiasts use those disclaimers No, anyone that doesn't want to be legally liable. If the other person could reasonably believe they have gotten legal advice, or a client-attorney relationship was establishes, then you might be liable. Before you say that this would be ridiculous to assume on an internet forum, be advised that many lawyers nowadays have websites, blogs, allow starting a client-attorney relationship over a public question board, and such situations on Reddit have existed before. Disclaimer: I am not an attorney, this is not legal advice.

ringaroundthetx 9y ago
> Before you say that this would be ridiculous to assume on an internet forum Why would I say this? Thanks for your contribution
sjy 9y ago
It is still ridiculous. Just because some lawyers take on clients over the internet doesn't mean that you need to say 'I am not a lawyer' every time you discuss a legal question online. I have never seen a case of someone being successfully (or even unsuccessfully) sued for pseudonymous, general online legal commentary.