3 ms·
this is a disingenuous post. The crux of the SEC effort against them is because they created this chain and token during the 2017 gold rush (actually in 2018 bu
by ascendantlogic 6y ago
this is a disingenuous post. The crux of the SEC effort against them is because they created this chain and token during the 2017 gold rush (actually in 2018 but obviously the 2017 bull run is what sparked the interest) and very clearly were trying to cash in. When you create what by all accounts is a security specifically for investment and asset appreciation but don't register it as a security with the SEC, they get a little unhappy. Reading back through some of the articles before this when the SEC intervened Telegram had raised 1.7 billion dollars off this. When you make a few billion off an unregistered security offering, people are going to sit up and take notice.
Regardless of your feelings on the SEC, crypto, et al, it's pretty obvious why the SEC intervened and to see this eventual outcome.
- jrochkind1 6y ago> Reading back through some of the articles before this when the SEC intervened Telegram had raised 1.7 billion dollars off this. I think I understand the "more in sadness than in anger" tone of the post better now too. They did fine for themselves didn't they.
- ConsiderCrying 6y agoThey have to return the investments though,so I wouldn't say they "did fine". Back at square one, having spent a couple of years on a project.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- wmf 6y agoNot really. They have to return $1.2B (either in cash or equity) and their burn rate is high. Now they have to find a new business model before the runway runs out.
- jandrese 6y agoSo they get to keep half a billion and never had to offer anything of value?
- true_religion 6y agoThe amount they get to keep cake from accredited investors, so I don’t really feel any sympathy there.