5 ms·

All good to know. > Not relevant. You can issue stock that pays dividends in piñatas. If it's sold to Americans, the SEC has jurisdiction. Isn't this because

by beaned 4y ago

All good to know. > Not relevant. You can issue stock that pays dividends in piñatas. If it's sold to Americans, the SEC has jurisdiction. Isn't this because the stock itself is already a security, not because of whether or how it pays dividends?

JumpCrisscross 4y ago
> Isn't this because the stock itself is already a security, not because of whether or how it pays dividends? Whether it pays dividends, at all or in what form, is irrelevant to whether it's a security. That Kraken didn't pay out U.S. dollars isn't relevant to the question of whether they were offering securities.
- beaned 4y ago
  Yeah that makes sense but that's not what I was meaning to point out. You said this: > You can issue stock that pays dividends in piñatas. If it's sold to Americans, the SEC has jurisdiction. So whether or not the stock issues dividends in eth, USD, pinatas, or not at all, doesn't matter. The SEC "has jurisdiction" simply because a stock is already a security to begin with, right? What I'm asking is, if dividends are not relevant, how is the SEC able to step in specifically in regards to dividends in this case? The way you phrased it, I would understand it to mean that if you can hold the token (or stock, equity, security, etc) on behalf of a user to begin with, then you'd be able to issue the dividends without further approval. Is that understanding incorrect?
  - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
    > if you can hold the token (or stock, equity, security, etc) on behalf of a user to begin with, then you'd be able to issue the dividends without further approval Staking returns are more similar to stock lending than dividends. They don’t automatically arise from owning a token.
    - beaned 4y ago
      Actually it does just arise from owning the token, if you stake the token.
      - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
        > it does just arise from owning the token, if you stake the token If. (And you aren’t. You’re asking someone to.)

by beaned 4y ago

JumpCrisscross 4y ago

> Isn't this because the stock itself is already a security, not because of whether or how it pays dividends? Whether it pays dividends, at all or in what form, is irrelevant to whether it's a security. That Kraken didn't pay out U.S. dollars isn't relevant to the question of whether they were offering securities.

beaned 4y ago
Yeah that makes sense but that's not what I was meaning to point out. You said this: > You can issue stock that pays dividends in piñatas. If it's sold to Americans, the SEC has jurisdiction. So whether or not the stock issues dividends in eth, USD, pinatas, or not at all, doesn't matter. The SEC "has jurisdiction" simply because a stock is already a security to begin with, right? What I'm asking is, if dividends are not relevant, how is the SEC able to step in specifically in regards to dividends in this case? The way you phrased it, I would understand it to mean that if you can hold the token (or stock, equity, security, etc) on behalf of a user to begin with, then you'd be able to issue the dividends without further approval. Is that understanding incorrect?
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  > if you can hold the token (or stock, equity, security, etc) on behalf of a user to begin with, then you'd be able to issue the dividends without further approval Staking returns are more similar to stock lending than dividends. They don’t automatically arise from owning a token.
  - beaned 4y ago
    Actually it does just arise from owning the token, if you stake the token.
    - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
      > it does just arise from owning the token, if you stake the token If. (And you aren’t. You’re asking someone to.)