7 ms·

Yep. And then Filecoin doesn't even sell equity! It's gross. With our company we're trying to do right by investors. We're completely in violation of the SEC me

Yep. And then Filecoin doesn't even sell equity! It's gross. With our company we're trying to do right by investors. We're completely in violation of the SEC memo. In fact, that's what galvanized us to 100% offer shares instead. We were going to do it before, but the SEC really set us straight: If we're going to be in violation of regulations we might as well make the most of it.

Sangermaine 9y ago
Are you saying that instead of an ICO, you've now decided to do an unregistered share offering, and you're knowingly doing this in violation of the law? You do realize you can face criminal penalties for this, right?
- wmf 9y ago
  Based on previous comments it sounds like their business is fundamentally illegal anyway (prostitution?) and thus it's pointless for them to comply with SEC regulations. But this approach doesn't generalize.
  - SomeStupidPoint 9y ago
    I disagree with the assessment that because you're committing one crime, you should commit two. For example, lots of drug dealers get busted on tax related charges. Being the pimps busted on securities laws isn't impossible, especially if you set that up as a slam-dunk case while making the other hard to prosecute. Not commenting on their specific case, but that reasoning is dubious.
    - the_stc 9y ago
      We agree. For instance, we have a very strong anti-drug stance, despite not thinking it's immoral. We just don't want to draw unnecessary attacks against our platform. The SEC thing was probably unavoidable anyways.
- the_stc 9y ago
  Exactly. Being ethical is more important than being legal. To be fair, our entire business model is illegal in the US, and mostly illegal in many countries. We already have to deal with the penalties for running an escort agency. On the plus side, it's a good business model so our chance of success is pretty high. If we end up having good returns, there will be less complaints and we'll be less of a target for the SEC organically. We intend to be the first blockchain-funded cypherpunk unicorn. It would set a bad precedent if we didn't treat investors fairly.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - KGIII 9y ago
    You know you're going to prison, right? SEC doesn't much care if you did right by investors. Hell, you're helping prove intent - right here in this post. Add conspiracy to your charges, by the way. Seeiously, consult a lawyer. You're going to go to prison.
    - the_stc 9y ago
      It's our view that the SEC part won't be what pushes us over the edge. 100% what we're doing is not legal, it's in our business plan. SEC won't care if investors are OK, yes. But if investors are OK, they won't be filing complaints and there will be less pressure to go after us. Not a defense! Just a delaying factor. Prosecution isn't free. Far easier to shut down ICOs that aren't operating as proper anonymous extrajurisdictional companies. They can go after us, but it's a terrible ROI for them. But that is not what we're counting on! Basically we asked: What if everything related to sex work was legal? What would the inevitable startup look like? With modern privacy tech, we can attempt to try it. We can ignore legal issues by operating extrajurisdictionally and anonymously. This article discusses our technical setup: https://medium.com/@PinkApp/pink-app-trading-latency-for-anonymity-and-other-techniques-815ee21c6da4 https://medium.com/@PinkApp/pink-app-trading-latency-for-ano... - excuse the clickbait title. Please let me know the flaws you see! Latency could be a killer, but we think we can mitigate it. The core team, people that know real-world ID, are very few. Within a few months we plan to move nearly exclusively to high-latency communication methods. By having trustless contractors run public-facing aspects of the business, the core team's opsec attack surface is drastically reduced. We have contingency plans, so even in case of arrest or death, the system can be restored from backup. Maybe one day there will be private mature smart contracts and we can codify it. Meanwhile we'll rely on lawyers and other trusted parties. It may sound crazy ... a libertarian cypherpunk dream. But think how if you told people that it'd be popular to send non-refundable Internet money to a hidden internet service that promises to give it to an anonymous drug dealer on the other side of the planet to mail you drugs via the US Postal Service and that people would willingly trust them and it'd all be safer than using the street ... well people would have called you crazy! Yet it's popular and darknet services do exist that haven't had their operators busted.

Sangermaine 9y ago

Are you saying that instead of an ICO, you've now decided to do an unregistered share offering, and you're knowingly doing this in violation of the law? You do realize you can face criminal penalties for this, right?

wmf 9y ago
Based on previous comments it sounds like their business is fundamentally illegal anyway (prostitution?) and thus it's pointless for them to comply with SEC regulations. But this approach doesn't generalize.
- SomeStupidPoint 9y ago
  I disagree with the assessment that because you're committing one crime, you should commit two. For example, lots of drug dealers get busted on tax related charges. Being the pimps busted on securities laws isn't impossible, especially if you set that up as a slam-dunk case while making the other hard to prosecute. Not commenting on their specific case, but that reasoning is dubious.
  - the_stc 9y ago
    We agree. For instance, we have a very strong anti-drug stance, despite not thinking it's immoral. We just don't want to draw unnecessary attacks against our platform. The SEC thing was probably unavoidable anyways.
the_stc 9y ago
Exactly. Being ethical is more important than being legal. To be fair, our entire business model is illegal in the US, and mostly illegal in many countries. We already have to deal with the penalties for running an escort agency. On the plus side, it's a good business model so our chance of success is pretty high. If we end up having good returns, there will be less complaints and we'll be less of a target for the SEC organically. We intend to be the first blockchain-funded cypherpunk unicorn. It would set a bad precedent if we didn't treat investors fairly.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- KGIII 9y ago
  You know you're going to prison, right? SEC doesn't much care if you did right by investors. Hell, you're helping prove intent - right here in this post. Add conspiracy to your charges, by the way. Seeiously, consult a lawyer. You're going to go to prison.
  - the_stc 9y ago
    It's our view that the SEC part won't be what pushes us over the edge. 100% what we're doing is not legal, it's in our business plan. SEC won't care if investors are OK, yes. But if investors are OK, they won't be filing complaints and there will be less pressure to go after us. Not a defense! Just a delaying factor. Prosecution isn't free. Far easier to shut down ICOs that aren't operating as proper anonymous extrajurisdictional companies. They can go after us, but it's a terrible ROI for them. But that is not what we're counting on! Basically we asked: What if everything related to sex work was legal? What would the inevitable startup look like? With modern privacy tech, we can attempt to try it. We can ignore legal issues by operating extrajurisdictionally and anonymously. This article discusses our technical setup: https://medium.com/@PinkApp/pink-app-trading-latency-for-anonymity-and-other-techniques-815ee21c6da4 https://medium.com/@PinkApp/pink-app-trading-latency-for-ano... - excuse the clickbait title. Please let me know the flaws you see! Latency could be a killer, but we think we can mitigate it. The core team, people that know real-world ID, are very few. Within a few months we plan to move nearly exclusively to high-latency communication methods. By having trustless contractors run public-facing aspects of the business, the core team's opsec attack surface is drastically reduced. We have contingency plans, so even in case of arrest or death, the system can be restored from backup. Maybe one day there will be private mature smart contracts and we can codify it. Meanwhile we'll rely on lawyers and other trusted parties. It may sound crazy ... a libertarian cypherpunk dream. But think how if you told people that it'd be popular to send non-refundable Internet money to a hidden internet service that promises to give it to an anonymous drug dealer on the other side of the planet to mail you drugs via the US Postal Service and that people would willingly trust them and it'd all be safer than using the street ... well people would have called you crazy! Yet it's popular and darknet services do exist that haven't had their operators busted.