6 ms·
decentralized, permissionless blockchains don't care about borders. centralized businesses absolutely do. Thinking that they can skirt securities law by saying
by risho 7y ago
decentralized, permissionless blockchains don't care about borders.
centralized businesses absolutely do. Thinking that they can skirt securities law by saying "blah blah blockchain" is comically stupid. even calling centralized services "blockchain" misses the entire point of it in the first place. centralized icos are not decentralized, not censorship resistant and are not permissionless. the only reason they are doing it on a blockchain instead of a database is either because they are trying to avoid securities regulations or they are trying to sell a buzzword to suckers.
if you are centralized "blockchain" does not protect you from regulators coming in and bankrupting your company.
- seibelj 7y agoHow would the SEC shutdown a Hong Kong exchange that excludes US customers? You don’t understand how jurisdiction works. Bitmex has been operating for 7 years!
- risho 7y agoyou should look into btc-e, the russian exchange that was shut down by the united states government. not only was it a russian exchange, he was arrested in greece, neither of which are america, for those not keeping track at home. i agree if the people of telegram want to never step foot on US soil and want to never step foot on the soil of a country that has extridition treaties with the united state, they can feel free to blatantly ignore united states law. good luck with that one. i doubt that will end well for you.
- Fezzik 7y agoBTC-E is alleged to have committed crimes that would bring it/Vinnik under the jurisdiction of the United States. The US did not just waltz in to Greece and arrest a Russian national with no assertion of jurisdiction. It also appears that many other nations agreed that the US has jurisdiction to prosecute him... https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndca/pr/russian-national-and-bitcoin-exchange-charged-21-count-indictment-operating-alleged https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndca/pr/russian-national-and-bi...
- asdfasgasdgasdg 7y agohttps://www.natlawreview.com/article/can-sec-bring-enforcement-actions-against-international-schemes https://www.natlawreview.com/article/can-sec-bring-enforceme... > When the conduct outside the United States had a substantial effect in the United States or upon United States citizens. So, as long as you make sure not to affect the US or US citizens, you should be safe from the SEC. However, who knows how broadly this rule will be read. If you don't KYC, you could accidentally affect a US citizen, and I don't see an exception here for that case. (I don't know if this applies to all SEC rules or just 77q(a), but it seems prudent to assume that if you are running afoul of an SEC rule you be very sure that no US citizen uses your services.)
- ykevinator 7y agoRegulation is good, not bad.
- CryptoPunk 7y agoBetter that people be able to choose between regulatory regimes, by choosing between different private platforms, than have a on-size-fits all regulation imposed on them without their consent. You shouldn't have to leave the US to use a particular exchange.
- LunaSea 7y agoConsent is given through voting rights. That's where the buck stops.
- CryptoPunk 7y agoThe majority voting for something doesn't equal consent.
- LunaSea 7y agoIt does, as by voting you relinquish your rights to have your opinion being taken into account by delegating it to representatives. Which means you consent to the decisions of the majority.
- CryptoPunk 7y agoDemocratically enacted laws apply whether you cast a vote or not. There is no contractual agreement that you surrender your agency when you decide to vote.
- LunaSea 7y agoYou don't surrender your agency, but your rights will be the ones determined by the country your are residing in. Not casting a vote is a choice not to vote which is also a form of opinion.