3 ms·

> magically exempt from securities laws because they really want them to be. Well when the law gets changed that's exactly why and how it gets changed Last ye

> magically exempt from securities laws because they really want them to be. Well when the law gets changed that's exactly why and how it gets changed Last year, Wyoming has recategorized crypto assets into their own asset classes that is exempts them from state level securities law and others. Because it was obvious to the legislature and governor there that debating commodities, currency or securities status was ignorant. This year, Montana representatives have also reached the same conclusion. This year, Colorado's representatives have also reached the same conclusion. US Congress has a bill in committee mirroring these. It isn't a priority for the House as you might imagine. Holistic US re-imagining of these assets isn't relevant until the Federal legislature reaches consensus. A week ago Liechtenstein's legislature unanimously reached the same conclusion, which inherits limited consensus amongst all European Union/EEA/EFTA member states. So yes, people seem to think cryptocurrency is magically exempt from securities laws except the securities regulators that do not mirror the will of the people and are being steered by their legislatures, as designed. Courts lack latitude to lean any other way as well, until the legislature changes the law, which is happening.

elchupanebre 7y ago
SEC applies Howey Test to determine if a given security is an investment contract (security) and as such must be registered if offered to public. The test is quite simple: * It's an investment of money * There is an expectation of profits from the investment * The investment is in a common enterprise * Any profit comes from the efforts of the one offering the investment or a third party Cryptocurrency trading in general could be either but ICOs are clearly in the security category. I would be curious to see Wyoming etc. try to overturn Supreme Court's decision on SEC vs. Howey. If they are successful it will be the end of SEC and the public markets in the US as we know them. Re: Liechtenstein. They don't have a stock exchange so they don't have anything to lose.
- rolltiide 7y ago
  Nobody is trying to overturn the Howey and more important subsequent Federal court decisions. The law in Congress will tell the SEC to stop wasting time on this and give a default status for digital asset issuers to exist in that isnt securities. Exactly as a handful of states have done.
- rolltiide 7y ago
  Digital asset exchanges and issuers already exist in Liechtenstein. Kindly learn more about that. Things that are actually securities in liechtenstein are passportable to other European countries that do have stock exchanges. I think that was a very reductive and inaccurate comment on a multifaceted topic
  - elchupanebre 7y ago
    I said: "These is no stock exchange in Liechtenstein. They have nothing to lose." Your response: "Digital asset exchanges and issuers already exist in Liechtenstein." Why do you conflate the two? Is it intentional or due to lack of understanding? L. is trying to make money on ICOs because it does not have anything to lose with regular financial markets. > I think that was a very reductive and inaccurate comment on a multifaceted topic And I think that was an attempt to intentionally complicate a simple topic. Crypto can be used as an investment in a form of an ICOs and that should be registered. It can also be used as a currency instrument for (mostly illegal) transactions. When used as such it does not need to be registered.
    - rolltiide 7y ago
      I guess its not clear: Liechtenstein doesn't need a stock exchange because securities - stocks in particular - issued in Liechtenstein are already tradable in countries that do have stock exchanges. People sometimes do this because some their own country might have a withholding tax on capital or other uncompetitive nuances. You’re right in that they don't have one and have little to lose by creating digital securities and digital assets clarity. Liechtenstein’s law isn't only about cashing in on ICOs. It covers digital securities as well, which Europe’s other securities exchanges are not equipped to handle. There is only upside for them to provide a clear framework for digital securities and digital assets, making it easier for an issuer to choose and regulatory clarity for all participants We speaking the same language yet?
      - elchupanebre 7y ago
        > Liechtenstein’s law ... covers digital securities as well L's population is around 35 thousand. It's like City Council of Menlo Park CA gaining a status of a sovereign state and then making venture capitalists from Sand Hill Road exempt from SEC rules. L is trying to make a buck by being more permissive because they have nothing to lose otherwise. > We speaking the same language yet? I suppose we do. English that is :) https://medium.com/@straumli/not-blockchain-f569f288b6f1 https://medium.com/@straumli/not-blockchain-f569f288b6f1
cortesoft 7y ago
I wasn't saying all crypto assets are necessarily securities.... just that these Telegram ones are.

elchupanebre 7y ago

SEC applies Howey Test to determine if a given security is an investment contract (security) and as such must be registered if offered to public. The test is quite simple: * It's an investment of money * There is an expectation of profits from the investment * The investment is in a common enterprise * Any profit comes from the efforts of the one offering the investment or a third party Cryptocurrency trading in general could be either but ICOs are clearly in the security category. I would be curious to see Wyoming etc. try to overturn Supreme Court's decision on SEC vs. Howey. If they are successful it will be the end of SEC and the public markets in the US as we know them. Re: Liechtenstein. They don't have a stock exchange so they don't have anything to lose.

rolltiide 7y ago
Nobody is trying to overturn the Howey and more important subsequent Federal court decisions. The law in Congress will tell the SEC to stop wasting time on this and give a default status for digital asset issuers to exist in that isnt securities. Exactly as a handful of states have done.
rolltiide 7y ago
Digital asset exchanges and issuers already exist in Liechtenstein. Kindly learn more about that. Things that are actually securities in liechtenstein are passportable to other European countries that do have stock exchanges. I think that was a very reductive and inaccurate comment on a multifaceted topic
- elchupanebre 7y ago
  I said: "These is no stock exchange in Liechtenstein. They have nothing to lose." Your response: "Digital asset exchanges and issuers already exist in Liechtenstein." Why do you conflate the two? Is it intentional or due to lack of understanding? L. is trying to make money on ICOs because it does not have anything to lose with regular financial markets. > I think that was a very reductive and inaccurate comment on a multifaceted topic And I think that was an attempt to intentionally complicate a simple topic. Crypto can be used as an investment in a form of an ICOs and that should be registered. It can also be used as a currency instrument for (mostly illegal) transactions. When used as such it does not need to be registered.
  - rolltiide 7y ago
    I guess its not clear: Liechtenstein doesn't need a stock exchange because securities - stocks in particular - issued in Liechtenstein are already tradable in countries that do have stock exchanges. People sometimes do this because some their own country might have a withholding tax on capital or other uncompetitive nuances. You’re right in that they don't have one and have little to lose by creating digital securities and digital assets clarity. Liechtenstein’s law isn't only about cashing in on ICOs. It covers digital securities as well, which Europe’s other securities exchanges are not equipped to handle. There is only upside for them to provide a clear framework for digital securities and digital assets, making it easier for an issuer to choose and regulatory clarity for all participants We speaking the same language yet?
    - elchupanebre 7y ago
      > Liechtenstein’s law ... covers digital securities as well L's population is around 35 thousand. It's like City Council of Menlo Park CA gaining a status of a sovereign state and then making venture capitalists from Sand Hill Road exempt from SEC rules. L is trying to make a buck by being more permissive because they have nothing to lose otherwise. > We speaking the same language yet? I suppose we do. English that is :) https://medium.com/@straumli/not-blockchain-f569f288b6f1 https://medium.com/@straumli/not-blockchain-f569f288b6f1

cortesoft 7y ago

I wasn't saying all crypto assets are necessarily securities.... just that these Telegram ones are.