3 ms·

>Last year I did invent a novel mechanism to allow tokens to comply with securities laws while both allowing end users to spend them as utility tokens and accre

>Last year I did invent a novel mechanism to allow tokens to comply with securities laws while both allowing end users to spend them as utility tokens and accredited investors to profit from them as investments, so I'm curious to see if a real market need develops here. Not saying you didn’t. But keep in mind one of the biggest and most prominent law firms in the tech/startup/Blockchain space published the original “legal framework” for SAFTs (simple agreement for tokens) based on SAFEs(simple agreements for equity) which was premised on a utility token...18 months later the SEC dropped the hammer on companies who ICO’ed using said SAFT framework. So question did you submit your legal framework to the SEC and they told you it is compliant?

Alex3917 8y ago
> So question did you submit your legal framework to the SEC and they told you it is compliant? I haven't, but it's done in a way that makes it impossible for any of the prongs of the Howey Test to be met for non-accredited investors. (There is no investment, there is no possibility of profit, etc.) So if there are things that need to be changed, which there may be, they're probably relatively minor. > 18 months later the SEC dropped the hammer on companies who ICO’ed using said SAFT framework. What the SEC has repeatedly affirmed is that the law hasn't changed since the 1920s or whatever. The fact that the law firm in question may have been advising their clients to commit crimes doesn't mean the law has changed.
- will_brown 8y ago
  Well no offense but until you submit your legal proposal to the SEC and get their opinion...any claim about “SEC compliance” is suspect. Again you may very well may have done what you say, but if anyone had developed a legal framework, it’s unexplainable why they wouldn’t get the SEC to confirm the same. The SEC created an entire division and online submission portal to handle these requests, and to date no one has established a legal framework for ICOs (short of registering the token as a security, or accredited investor only exemptions). Congress has even asked the SEC to publish guidelines for a legal ICO, and to date the SEC hasn’t (likely because short of registering/accredited investor exemptions/transfer restriction the SEC can’t come up with a legal framework).
  - Alex3917 8y ago
    > if anyone had developed a legal framework, it’s unexplainable why they wouldn’t get the SEC to confirm the same. I mean it's not something I'm actually working on so it would be a waste of time and money to solicit the SEC's guidance. I've told some other people who are planning ICOs how the system works, so if they want to actually implement it then it's their responsibility to pay to have their lawyers sit in on SEC meetings and for a legal opinion, documents, etc.
    - will_brown 8y ago
      FYI checkout https://www.sec.gov/finhub https://www.sec.gov/finhub It’s free (no SEC fees) and you don’t need a lawyer. I’d recommend a lawyer...but there are no SEC meetings for them to sit in on and bill you for.
      - Alex3917 8y ago
        Thanks, I'll send them my architecture and writeup at some point. I'm avoid spending much time working on crypto stuff until the markets capitulate, but it's looking more and more like that could be within the next six months.

Alex3917 8y ago

> So question did you submit your legal framework to the SEC and they told you it is compliant? I haven't, but it's done in a way that makes it impossible for any of the prongs of the Howey Test to be met for non-accredited investors. (There is no investment, there is no possibility of profit, etc.) So if there are things that need to be changed, which there may be, they're probably relatively minor. > 18 months later the SEC dropped the hammer on companies who ICO’ed using said SAFT framework. What the SEC has repeatedly affirmed is that the law hasn't changed since the 1920s or whatever. The fact that the law firm in question may have been advising their clients to commit crimes doesn't mean the law has changed.

will_brown 8y ago
Well no offense but until you submit your legal proposal to the SEC and get their opinion...any claim about “SEC compliance” is suspect. Again you may very well may have done what you say, but if anyone had developed a legal framework, it’s unexplainable why they wouldn’t get the SEC to confirm the same. The SEC created an entire division and online submission portal to handle these requests, and to date no one has established a legal framework for ICOs (short of registering the token as a security, or accredited investor only exemptions). Congress has even asked the SEC to publish guidelines for a legal ICO, and to date the SEC hasn’t (likely because short of registering/accredited investor exemptions/transfer restriction the SEC can’t come up with a legal framework).
- Alex3917 8y ago
  > if anyone had developed a legal framework, it’s unexplainable why they wouldn’t get the SEC to confirm the same. I mean it's not something I'm actually working on so it would be a waste of time and money to solicit the SEC's guidance. I've told some other people who are planning ICOs how the system works, so if they want to actually implement it then it's their responsibility to pay to have their lawyers sit in on SEC meetings and for a legal opinion, documents, etc.
  - will_brown 8y ago
    FYI checkout https://www.sec.gov/finhub https://www.sec.gov/finhub It’s free (no SEC fees) and you don’t need a lawyer. I’d recommend a lawyer...but there are no SEC meetings for them to sit in on and bill you for.
    - Alex3917 8y ago
      Thanks, I'll send them my architecture and writeup at some point. I'm avoid spending much time working on crypto stuff until the markets capitulate, but it's looking more and more like that could be within the next six months.