4 ms·
Isn't this just an interpretation of the law? Yes, the SEC may try to enforce their view of the law, but is it actually the correct one? It only takes one SAFT
by charlesdm 8y ago
Isn't this just an interpretation of the law? Yes, the SEC may try to enforce their view of the law, but is it actually the correct one?
It only takes one SAFT token company to take things to court, and have a judge rule in their favour, to basically legitimise all tokens - no?
(Note: I have no clue who is right here, but just because it's the SEC doesn't mean they are automatically right. Same applies to the IRS etc)
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- sharemywin 8y agoor go to prison if you lose.
- s73v3r_ 8y agoThe SEC does not have the authority to bring criminal cases; only civil. They can refer to the DoJ for criminal prosecution.
- drawnwren 8y agoNo, you're absolutely correct. However, the inverse is also true. The SEC only needs to win one case to set precedent for all SAFTs. Given that the SEC is the one bringing the cases, it would seem obvious that they would establish sound precedent before going after the murkier cases. I'm not sure I'd want to tie my wagon to anyone who used a SAFT.