https://www.sec.gov/litigation/investreport/34-81207.pdf

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3684669&forum_id=2#33853283)

Poor peterman

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3684669&forum_id=2#33853204)

Too bad Jared Kushner tp left, because I always said it was a bad idea to buy into ICOs that block US citizens and he said I was retarded for believing this.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3684669&forum_id=2#33853220)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3684669&forum_id=2#33853206)

In light of the facts and circumstances, the agency has decided not to bring charges in this instance, or make findings of violations in the Report, but rather to caution the industry and market participants: the federal securities laws apply to those who offer and sell securities in the United States, regardless whether the issuing entity is a traditional company or a decentralized autonomous organization, regardless whether those securities are purchased using U.S. dollars or virtual currencies, and regardless whether they are distributed in certificated form or through distributed ledger technology.

So if they prevent US citizens from purchasing, then we're good? Status quo I believe.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3684669&forum_id=2#33853225)

THIS COUNTRY IS A FUCKING FRAUDLIES SCAM FROM HELL

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3684669&forum_id=2#33853227)

He also repeatedly and angrily said I was a complete idiot for telling others not to participate, was arrogant and clueless, and should stop poasting in crypto threads.

And I'm 100% right and his faggot ass is gone. Hope people listened to me.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3684669&forum_id=2#33853350)

It was basically guaranteed money. At the time, I analogized it to proceeds taken from drug dealing, or other ill gotten gains. Sure there is far more profit potential, but the risk is probably not worth it.

Someone who disregards all risk, or convinces himself it doesn't exist, could easily have poured in $100k worth or more into the ICO. Like I said, it was basically guaranteed money.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3684669&forum_id=2#33853398)

Pretty much all of them provided the opportunity to have astronomical returns.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3684669&forum_id=2#33853438)

And yes, I was right. When at least 50 previous ICOs uniformly provided the opportunity to make 300%+ in a very short period of time, investing in a new one basically guaranteed that you would be able to make money.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3684669&forum_id=2#33853470)

But there's nothing here made after-the-fact. If you go back and find the threads made while people were buying into the ICO, I really wanted to buy in.

If I had, I would have tripled my money. As it stands, I only got a quick 50% profit.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3684669&forum_id=2#33855430)

U.S. Securities Laws May Apply to Offers, Sales, and Trading of Interests in Virtual Organizations

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

2017-131

Washington D.C., July 25, 2017—

The Securities and Exchange Commission issued an investigative report today cautioning market participants that offers and sales of digital assets by "virtual" organizations are subject to the requirements of the federal securities laws. Such offers and sales, conducted by organizations using distributed ledger or blockchain technology, have been referred to, among other things, as "Initial Coin Offerings" or "Token Sales." Whether a particular investment transaction involves the offer or sale of a security – regardless of the terminology or technology used – will depend on the facts and circumstances, including the economic realities of the transaction.

The SEC's Report of Investigation found that tokens offered and sold by a "virtual" organization known as "The DAO" were securities and therefore subject to the federal securities laws. The Report confirms that issuers of distributed ledger or blockchain technology-based securities must register offers and sales of such securities unless a valid exemption applies. Those participating in unregistered offerings also may be liable for violations of the securities laws. Additionally, securities exchanges providing for trading in these securities must register unless they are exempt. The purpose of the registration provisions of the federal securities laws is to ensure that investors are sold investments that include all the proper disclosures and are subject to regulatory scrutiny for investors' protection.

"The SEC is studying the effects of distributed ledger and other innovative technologies and encourages market participants to engage with us," said SEC Chairman Jay Clayton. "We seek to foster innovative and beneficial ways to raise capital, while ensuring – first and foremost – that investors and our markets are protected."

"Investors need the essential facts behind any investment opportunity so they can make fully informed decisions, and today's Report confirms that sponsors of offerings conducted through the use of distributed ledger or blockchain technology must comply with the securities laws," said William Hinman, Director of the Division of Corporation Finance.

The SEC's Report stems from an inquiry that the agency’s Enforcement Division launched into whether The DAO and associated entities and individuals violated federal securities laws with unregistered offers and sales of DAO Tokens in exchange for "Ether," a virtual currency. The DAO has been described as a "crowdfunding contract" but it would not have met the requirements of the Regulation Crowdfunding exemption because, among other things, it was not a broker-dealer or a funding portal registered with the SEC and the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority.

"The innovative technology behind these virtual transactions does not exempt securities offerings and trading platforms from the regulatory framework designed to protect investors and the integrity of the markets," said Stephanie Avakian, Co-Director of the SEC's Enforcement Division.

Steven Peikin, Co-Director of the Enforcement Division added, "As the evolution of technology continues to influence how businesses operate and raise capital, market participants must remain cognizant of the application of the federal securities laws."

In light of the facts and circumstances, the agency has decided not to bring charges in this instance, or make findings of violations in the Report, but rather to caution the industry and market participants: the federal securities laws apply to those who offer and sell securities in the United States, regardless whether the issuing entity is a traditional company or a decentralized autonomous organization, regardless whether those securities are purchased using U.S. dollars or virtual currencies, and regardless whether they are distributed in certificated form or through distributed ledger technology.

The SEC's Office of Investor Education and Advocacy today issued an investor bulletin educating investors about ICOs. As discussed in the Report, virtual coins or tokens may be securities and subject to the federal securities laws. The federal securities laws provide disclosure requirements and other important protections of which investors should be aware. In addition, the bulletin reminds investors of red flags of investment fraud, and that new technologies may be used to perpetrate investment schemes that may not comply with the federal securities laws.

The SEC's investigation in this matter was conducted in the New York office by members of the SEC's Distributed Ledger Technology Working Group (DLTWG) -- Pamela Sawhney, Daphna A. Waxman, and Valerie A. Szczepanik, who heads the DLTWG -- with assistance from others in the agency's Divisions of Corporation Finance, Trading and Markets, and Investment Management. The investigation was supervised by Lara Shalov Mehraban.

###

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3684669&forum_id=2#33853261)

I'm over SPS Icos

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3684669&forum_id=2#33853270)

U.S. Securities Laws May Apply to Offers, Sales, and Trading of Interests in Virtual Organizations

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

2017-131

Washington D.C., July 25, 2017—

The Securities and Exchange Commission issued an investigative report today cautioning market participants that offers and sales of digital assets by "virtual" organizations are subject to the requirements of the federal securities laws. Such offers and sales, conducted by organizations using distributed ledger or blockchain technology, have been referred to, among other things, as "Initial Coin Offerings" or "Token Sales." Whether a particular investment transaction involves the offer or sale of a security – regardless of the terminology or technology used – will depend on the facts and circumstances, including the economic realities of the transaction.

The SEC's Report of Investigation found that tokens offered and sold by a "virtual" organization known as "The DAO" were securities and therefore subject to the federal securities laws. The Report confirms that issuers of distributed ledger or blockchain technology-based securities must register offers and sales of such securities unless a valid exemption applies. Those participating in unregistered offerings also may be liable for violations of the securities laws. Additionally, securities exchanges providing for trading in these securities must register unless they are exempt. The purpose of the registration provisions of the federal securities laws is to ensure that investors are sold investments that include all the proper disclosures and are subject to regulatory scrutiny for investors' protection.

"The SEC is studying the effects of distributed ledger and other innovative technologies and encourages market participants to engage with us," said SEC Chairman Jay Clayton. "We seek to foster innovative and beneficial ways to raise capital, while ensuring – first and foremost – that investors and our markets are protected."

"Investors need the essential facts behind any investment opportunity so they can make fully informed decisions, and today's Report confirms that sponsors of offerings conducted through the use of distributed ledger or blockchain technology must comply with the securities laws," said William Hinman, Director of the Division of Corporation Finance.

The SEC's Report stems from an inquiry that the agency’s Enforcement Division launched into whether The DAO and associated entities and individuals violated federal securities laws with unregistered offers and sales of DAO Tokens in exchange for "Ether," a virtual currency. The DAO has been described as a "crowdfunding contract" but it would not have met the requirements of the Regulation Crowdfunding exemption because, among other things, it was not a broker-dealer or a funding portal registered with the SEC and the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority.

"The innovative technology behind these virtual transactions does not exempt securities offerings and trading platforms from the regulatory framework designed to protect investors and the integrity of the markets," said Stephanie Avakian, Co-Director of the SEC's Enforcement Division.

Steven Peikin, Co-Director of the Enforcement Division added, "As the evolution of technology continues to influence how businesses operate and raise capital, market participants must remain cognizant of the application of the federal securities laws."

In light of the facts and circumstances, the agency has decided not to bring charges in this instance, or make findings of violations in the Report, but rather to caution the industry and market participants: the federal securities laws apply to those who offer and sell securities in the United States, regardless whether the issuing entity is a traditional company or a decentralized autonomous organization, regardless whether those securities are purchased using U.S. dollars or virtual currencies, and regardless whether they are distributed in certificated form or through distributed ledger technology.

The SEC's Office of Investor Education and Advocacy today issued an investor bulletin educating investors about ICOs. As discussed in the Report, virtual coins or tokens may be securities and subject to the federal securities laws. The federal securities laws provide disclosure requirements and other important protections of which investors should be aware. In addition, the bulletin reminds investors of red flags of investment fraud, and that new technologies may be used to perpetrate investment schemes that may not comply with the federal securities laws.

The SEC's investigation in this matter was conducted in the New York office by members of the SEC's Distributed Ledger Technology Working Group (DLTWG) -- Pamela Sawhney, Daphna A. Waxman, and Valerie A. Szczepanik, who heads the DLTWG -- with assistance from others in the agency's Divisions of Corporation Finance, Trading and Markets, and Investment Management. The investigation was supervised by Lara Shalov Mehraban.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3684669&forum_id=2#33853275)

"Initial Coin Offerings" or "Token Sales."

"Initial Coin Offerings" or "Token Sales."

"Initial Coin Offerings" or "Token Sales."

"Initial Coin Offerings" or "Token Sales."

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3684669&forum_id=2#33853285)

the killer line:

"Additionally, securities exchanges providing for trading in these securities must register unless they are exempt."

us-based exchanges may start dropping trading in security-like tokens (e.g, PAY, which is tenx's token).

OUT OUT OUT of SHITCOINS OUT

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3684669&forum_id=2#33853278)

probably the only thing is taht the universe of exchanges on which it can be traded will be reduced since they need to be regsitered with the SEC. i have no clue if any us-based exchanges are SEC-registered at all. i also have no clue what this means about using exchanges based in other countries (e.g. liqui.io).

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3684669&forum_id=2#33853320)

Short-term and long-term?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3684669&forum_id=2#33853333)

long term this is to be expected. it was only a matter of time. i dont know how the regulations will shake out but if the sec allows shitcoins to exist, albeit in a more regulated state, this could be long-term good for crypto in general. regulatory clarity may pave the way for bigger companies to participate in icos and make it easier for institutions to adopt crypto.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3684669&forum_id=2#33853360)

Again, Jared Kushner tp and others must have fought with me at least 40 times in various threads over this issue. I kept saying how participating in these ICOs that expressly exclude US citizens was a very bad idea, and subjected you to potential legal and professional consequences, but they insisted I was a retard for even thinking such a thing.

Fast forward and yet again I am one of the lone voices of reason. And they are completely discredited. Too bad he left because I'd love to rub his face in this.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3684669&forum_id=2#33853327)

LOL PETERMAN

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3684669&forum_id=2#33853356)

My point has always been that it's risky to buy these things. His point was only a fucking moron would think like this, and it's equivalent to checking that you are above 18 to enter a porn site when you are really underage.

Obviously I am right and he is wrong. And forget about prosecution. Let's say your State's bar finds out about this. I think you'd have no defense. You are falsely certifying that you are not a US citizen; absolutely no plausible deniability.

Now will any of these things happen? As I've said all along, the odds are extremely tiny. But they exist, and for this reason alone I am right and the other side was completely wrong.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3684669&forum_id=2#33853423)

My point all along was that it's risky to buy into the MYST ICO since US investors were expressly excluded and you had to certify you weren't a US investor in order to purchase (granted, not under oath). Both due to the potential legal consequences (which I always said were very remote), along with professional consequences (state bar), which, while still unlikely, remain a risk.

The other side, represented by Jared Kushner tp, was that there was absolutely no risk at all in buying into such an ICO, and only a complete retard could think otherwise.

The SEC news today conclusively proved that I was right.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3684669&forum_id=2#33855459)

Blockchain is going to be our generations internet boom, but we'll miss out on a lot of it because of stuff like this and NY's bitcoin reg.

Personally, I'd rather see the US market capture more of the blockchain explosion, even if it means taking a more cautious regulatory approach, but the folks at the SEC, who will inevitably leverage these regulations to get jobs at Davis Polk, were never going to let that happen. I guess we'll just pass on the most innovative technology of the past few decades so that we can make absolutely sure that the Peterman's of the world are protected.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3684669&forum_id=2#33853346)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3684669&forum_id=2#33853459)

seems like this is HOUSE IN ON FIRE GET OUT GET OUT GET OUT NOW NOW NOW type news

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3684669&forum_id=2#33853515)

where are poloniex and bittrex located?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3684669&forum_id=2#33853816)

not sure but hypothetically what might happens is that the exchanges - where much of the trading takes place - are gonna get antsy and will announce that they're shutting down for fear of SEC pwnage. this will cause a major disruption in supply as people scram to exchanegs where u.s. securities laws dont apply. but i think if an exchange sells to a u.s. investor then the u.s. laws apply so this would reach out and impact all exchanges. but then again those foreign exchanges in kerplekistan might be like fuck u we have no assets in the u.s. so sue us to your hearts content and good luck enforcing any judgment. and that's in the unlikely event the SEC gets involved in applying its regs to pursue foreign crypto exchanges. whats much more likely (but also very unlikely to result in any material impact) is that u.s. shitlawyers might file suits against the exchanges for violations of securities laws arising under private rights of action under the exchange act or implied in case law. but that's unliklely becuase they realize the chances of recovery are between slim and none.

UNNNNGH dat fact spotting

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3684669&forum_id=2#33853921)

for now it seems like shitcoins are trading as they always do - in tandem wiht btc/eth.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3684669&forum_id=2#33853968)

What would be helpful to know is who owns the exchanges. I think winklevoss own Gemini which actually is about reassuring because there is someone who will actually feel it if Gemini is sued.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3684669&forum_id=2#33853952)