4 ms·
So it's not that the blockchain or exchange systems where insecure, only that tokens available at the ICO were being sold below par to investors? Setting aside
by mikece 7y ago
So it's not that the blockchain or exchange systems where insecure, only that tokens available at the ICO were being sold below par to investors? Setting aside the giant red flag that is refusing to accept a subpoena, if the ICO tokens are revalued to take away the discount to early investors would it then be legal?
- JumpCrisscross 7y ago> if the ICO tokens are revalued to take away the discount to early investors would it then be legal? No. The tokens are securities. They are issued by a single issuer to fund development of a product which doesn’t presently exist, with early investors in SAFTs buying them on expectation of profit. In any case, how would you value the discount? You don’t know the price until a market exists. And by that point, the 171 early investors have already dumped their pump on retail investors.
- davidgerard 7y agoIt's worth noting that quite a lot of the VCs in question had already written off their investments in 2017-2018 shitcoin ICOs. This is why said VCs were suggesting to Coinbase last month that they list all these shitcoins that nobody even trades now, but which the VCs just happen to be holding massive bags of: https://blog.coinbase.com/coinbase-continues-to-explore-support-for-new-digital-assets-70419575eac4 https://blog.coinbase.com/coinbase-continues-to-explore-supp...
- bagholder-alert 7y agoYou imply that Telegrams “Gram” has any buyers other than the early bagholders.
- throw_m239339 7y agoIs it the same stunt as Bitfinex and LEO backed by USDT "backed" by dollars? How is the lawsuit working for NY attorney General by the way? These guy just feel untouchable… it's unbelievable what they can get away with…