Monday, 25 September 2017

A Analysis

Rate this item
(3 votes)

Two months ago I penned "EU Area Residents' Step-by-Step Guide to Escaping the Upcoming Bank Bail-ins & Capital Controls". It was a very dense, information packed piece - and as recent events have illustrated - extremely timely as well. You had just enough time to build up enough capital outside of the fractional reserve banking system to make a real difference. Why would one do such a thing? Well, a quick review of the Zerohedge headlines from this morning:

  1. Draghi Freezes Greek ELA, Varoufakis Tells BBC "Looking At Imposing Capital Controls, Closing Banks"
  2. ECB Says "Greek Bank Holiday Now Necessary"
  3. G-7, EU Banking Officials Hold Emergency Calls Ahead Of Black Monday
  4. "Spread Bet" Early Market Opening Indications: Stocks Tumble, Europe Crashes

The upcoming (well, actually... now arrived) capital controls were literally guaranteed to happen and blockchain tech that we use is literally custom designed to circumvent both said controls and the leveraged methodology that required the use of such controls in the first place. The beginning of the guide gives you a history of what causes bank runs and bank holidays/bail-ins, while the second half of the guide is entitled "How To "Bail-in Proof" Your Money, a Step-by-Step Tutorial".

It may not be too late to read it and benefit, but the longer you wait...

Rate this item
(0 votes)

Zerohedge reports: FX Brokerages Move To "Close Only" Ahead Of Monday Open

Mayzus: Upcoming risk - Instruments moving to 'Close Only' mode

Due to the uncertainty surrounding the ongoing Greek debt negotiations, and ahead of a potential announcement over the weekend that could lead to high volatility on the market, please be informed that we have decided to decrease your risks by temporarily moving all Instruments to 'Close Only' mode, from 22:30 GMT+3 on Friday the 26th of June 2015, until 00:30 GMT+3 on Monday the 29th of June 2015, trading terminal time.

FxPro: With Greece’s uncertain future in the Eurozone continuing to dominate the headlines, we would like to inform you that we are doing everything in our power to reduce the risk of trading EUR pairs.

In order to provide a safeguard against a highly volatile market open, trading on EUR pairs may be subject to increased margin requirements.

This depends on the outcome of today’s decisive Eurogroup meeting, and how the situation in Greece unfolds over the rest of the weekend.

Please be advised that, depending on the severity of market conditions come Sunday night/Monday morning, we reserve the right to limit EUR trading to the closing of existing positions only.

Veritaseum allows traders to safely take volatilie forex risk

Below is a sample of trades that I have put out for tonight and Monday morning. Take note that the "forbidden pairs" are used with a healthy does of leverage. Anyone and everyone is welcomed to download a copy of the Veritaseum wallet and take the other sides of the trades or post their own. 

Veritaseum allows traders to safely take volatilie forex risk1

Anyone interested in learning how this platform allows one to trade value in forex pairs without counterparty and defauilt risk should read our info deck.

Rate this item
(0 votes)

Earlier this year I expounded upon the absurdity of the massive NIRP campaign embarked upon by the ECB and the nordic central banks. To recap, reference "Fu$k the Fundamentals!": Negative Rates In EU Will Absolutely Wreck the Very System the ECB Sought to Save and Despite What You Don't Hear In The Media, It's ALL OUT (Currency) WAR! Pt. 1 - in particular:

Okay, now back to this discussion of currency wars, something's got to give. Countries cannot (or at least, have never) successfully pursued all three methods of currency manipulation without failing. According to Wikipedia:

The Impossible trinity (also known as the Trilemma) is a trilemma in international economics which states that it is impossible to have all three of the following at the same time:

    1. fixed exchange rate
    2. Free capital movement (absence of capital controls)
    3. An independent monetary policy
Rate this item
(2 votes)

This is a step-by-step guide for accredited investors and high net worth individuals to make money investing in the bitcoin ecosystem guided by the lessons learned (not) from the previous paradigm shift, consequent bubble and ultimate burst. For the first time in modern history, we are experienecing a second paradigm shift within the same 100 year period. But... What is a Paradigm Shift?

To be absolutely honest, it's probably best to look at this as not two separate paradigm shifts but two separate steps to the evolution of mankind from an analog civilation to a fully digital one.

Rate this item
(2 votes)

Last year I penned "Who Are The Three Biggest Data Companies In the World? 1) Google 2) the Fed 3) JP Morgan/ECB" in an attempt to illustrate what many C-suite professionals seem to be missing. That is banks are essentially in direct competition with GAFA (Google, Apple, Facebook and Amazon - the pre-eminent data companies of our time). Banks are only just now starting to catch on to this, but the problem is they are catching on in the wrong way... again. It appears as if banks are concerned that GAFA will gain control of the user by sitting in between the heavily regulated commidity service (banking) and the user/user interface/user experience. Apple Pay is a very strong example of such. Now, don't get me wrong - that's a very valid concern. It's just that it's a concern born out of a gross misunderstanding of how the new "money" technologies work and what they are capable of. In all due respect to banking management, they are not the only one's who may not fully grasp this concept. I've notice many very smart investors and regulators may be missing the point as well. I glean this as I go on my mini-roadshow to raise capital for Veritaseum. The problem for the bankers is that they are the one's who will be affected the most. Investors may miss out on the next big thing. Regulators may pass inefficient regulation that may need to be re-written. Bankers face relegation to base utility companies with capped profits and margins, literally shielded from both the public view and mindshare... and that's the optimistic scenario! The probable scenario is that most bank functions will be subsumed into software and banks go the way of the classified ad (which was software-ified into Craigslist, eBay and Amazon).

Banks have been protected from competition for decades, essentially since the Great Depression. This protection may have shielded profit margins, but it is also stagnated innovation to the point where the banking industry is the oldest dinosaur of the era. The ATM from the late 1960s was the last material innovation that actually had a positive effect on the consumer. Practically everything else was financial engineering designed to pad margins. This remained true even through the Internet boom era where practically every other industry in the world witnessed a destructively creative boom in efficiency that caused slower dinosaurs to become extinct, replaced by faster and more nimble followers of the digital Apex Predator. All except the financial services industry. Why? Most likely because of regulatory protections. Now that we have "the internet of money" (that's blockchain technology for those who didn't know), it's time for the financial industry to face that creatively destructive cleansing of the inefficient.

GAFA, or young nimble startups such as Veritseum, see that the you can not only stand in as middleman/rent seeker/gatekeeper to the banks (this is the business model of most banks, which is why this is likely the first conclusion they jump to when they have a concern about GAFA competition), they can literally remove the middleman - period! Through Blockchain technology, many (if not most) banking functions and services can be facilitated on a peer-to-peer basis, without the participation of a bank at all. This means that banks' concerns of being relegated to a commoditized, highly regulated white-label service provider are not nearly paranoid enough. We're talking, at least in eyes of Veritaseum management - full blown, absolute disintermediation. The absolute removal of the rent seeker from the capital and money services equations - reference The Revolution Will Not Be Televised. It Will Not Be Decentralized, But It Will Be Distributed. 

You see, this wasn't possible 20, or even 10 years ago. Not only is possible now, it's being done on a trial basis. The reason is because the blockchain allows what is known as zero (or low) trust transactions. By minimizing or eliminating the trust necessary to conduct a transaction, you significantly increase the efficiency of said transaction. More importantly, you eliminate the need of 3rd party "trusted" intermediaries. The biggest of which are the banks in today's global banking system. Capital is a commodity. Banks don't truly supply or produce capital, they gather it from other entities and simply control it. If the capital of other individual entities are allowed to flow freely among themselves, there literally is no longer a needed function for banks. Does this sound apocalyptic or far fetched? Download the Veritaseum wallet and start trading the value of over 45k tickers in all asset classes, with leverage and without counterparty risk directly with others and solely through software and the blockchain-fortified cloud. As you do this, take note that you didn't come into contact with a single bank, broker or exchange. It's as far fetched as your next mouse click!

Rate this item
(2 votes)

The Exponential Finance symposium has just ended, and although I didn't attend, Blythe Masters apparently had the hardest hitting presentation. For those who don't know, up until last year she was number two
or three at JP Morgan and is the creator of the credit default swap (CDS). She is now the CEO of a Digital Assets (a Bitcoin technology company). Two quotes, a) "you were the most powerful woman on Wall Street", b) "How Serious should you take this? About as serious as you should have taken the Internet in the early 1990s!"

She is accompanies by many others who are pouring money into this space:

Wednesday, 03 June 2015 00:00

A User's "One Month Review of Veritaseum 1.2.0 Beta" Featured

Written by
Rate this item
(3 votes)

A summary and critique of the Veritaseum Wallet after one month of use. I'd like to note that in regard to the expiry portion of the comment, you can type in any expiry you wish, or use the advanced granular method. The dropdowns are just suggestions.

One Month Review of Veritaseum 1.2.0 Beta

Written by:  This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

I have tried out the Demo and Live Modes of Veritaseum 1.2.0 Beta.  I am satisfied with this derivative trading platform and look forward to seeing future Beta versions.

The platform fairly & accurately updates your P&L until contract expiration, and trades are updated periodically in real time to reflect market conditions. 

The platform currently gives you four order parameters to choose from -- "Principal", "Receive", "Pay", and "Expiry."  Other variables that can be modified are "Deviation" from Principal and two advanced variables -- "Collateral" as a percentage of Principal, and "Leverage" as a percentage of Principal.  

"Principal" refers to principal at risk.  "Receive" is what you buy.  "Pay" is what you sell.  "Expiry" refers to the terms of the contract, which currently is one of six time periods between one minute and five weeks.  The Receive and Pay inputs are keyword sensitive;  so for example, inputting the letter "F" gives you a drop down list of eight possible visible ticker's.  Additionally, there is a scrolling list of tickers which match your keyword phrase.

Rate this item
(0 votes)

Banking without Bankers! Trades without Brokers! Contracts without Courts!

Now that bitcoin, blockchain and digital currency technology is starting to go mainstream the discussion of the utility is a moot point. Alas, the implementation of the technology needs to be the new conversation. Nearly a billion dollars of VC money (reference The Evolution That Is Veritaseum: Benchmarking It To Venture Funded Competition) has been poured into the digital currency sector, yet the vast majority of that money has been poured in to a legacy framework that is bound to obsolesce. As a matter of fact, it will likely obsolesce before an acceptable return is realized from the money invested.

Now, this is a bold statement, and one that is liable to piss off a bunch of VCs that have already invested in the space. All I can say in this regard is… “Don’t shoot the messenger!” Let’s carefully walk through how this is the case.

In "Bitcoin 1.0 vs 2.0 – or – A Comparison of Legacy Exchanges & Veritaseum's UltraCoin" I explained the difference between 1st generation and 2nd generation bitcoin solutions, to wit:

The first bold generation of bitcoin entrepreneurs (it's amazing that you can refer to companies born 2 and 3 years ago as a previous generation, it just goes to show you how fast this space is moving!) built businesses based upon bitcoin as a legacy commodity. Basically, they bought, sold, transmitted or transferred it as a unit of value. They did this because that's how everything was done for the last several thousand years in the financial services industry. Basically, they had no choice - or so they thought. Then came those who read the Satoshi whitepaper and the bitcoin wiki and saw a very different meaning. My team and I are among those entrepreneurs. We saw that bitcoins were malleable, programmable, tools with which one can use to paint upon the canvas of value - any value, in almost any fashion. A far cry from the moving of static financial widgets from place to place. Think of moving bitcoins around (bitcoin 1.0 companies) vs programming bitcoins to act on their own according to their contractual owner's wishes (bitcoin 2.0 companies) akin to pushing a model T Ford around town vs. programming your driverless electric Tesla to go by the grocery store to pick up some fresh produce before swinging by the school to pick up your kids on the way home to meet you to take your wife (girlfriend?) out to dinner.

With this distinction in mind, I view the media with interest as I startup after startup win $25M, $50M, $75M funding rounds for essentially replicating a legacy business model couched in new age bitcoin wrapping. Significant money is spent on regulatory approvals and the fashioning of old systems into new systems - alas those new systems are still straddled with old system limitations which honestly begs the question, "Why bother?". Now, I don't want to assert that regulation is not needed or businesses can succeed without cooperating with regulatory authorities. What I am asserting is that these businesses and business models are being put together to satisfy the shortcomings of last generations technology (1.0) and are not only wasting the capabilities of the next generation tech (2.0) but will eventually (and I belive relatively quickly) be railroaded by nimble, efficient, and tranparent business models built on top of the way bitcoin was meant to be run. Not only does this not break regulations, but in our interpretation it totally sidesteps most regulatory barriers completely, and does so without jeopardizing the trust of institutions (at least those who are smart enough to realize what they are dealing in). 

Regulation in the financial services industry (both on the state and federal levels) is aimed primarily at the protection of the consumer. This is a good thing, both for the consumer and the industry in general, for a consumer that can't trust its vendors is a consumer that won't use it's vendors. This is the reason why the big(ger) bitcoin exchanges, money tranmsitters, etc. are getting regulated - as as to comply with the laws and appear more acceptable to the financial mainstream. The problem with this approach is that they are taking a decentralized, autonomous system of value transfer and attempting to shoehorn it into a centralized, legacy system created hundreds of years ago.

autonomous financial transactions  

Bitcoin 1.0 is where most of the VC money is flowing, but Bitcoin 2.0 is where the true value extraction - the next Google/Apple/Facebook (Veritaseum) will occur. This is all but guaranteed.

In "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised. It Will Not Be Decentralized, But It Will Be Distributed" I diagrammed this for all to see. 

The world of Financial computing used to be highly centralized, with powerful companies basically owning and controlling everything. The advent of the internet brought topological decentralization, but that decentralization is nominal and in name only because the most important aspects, the thing that really needed to be and stay decentralized is centralized and becoming increasingly more so. That thing is... control of the data! Remember, nearly all fiat money is now used as digital currencies. Count the number of physical dollars/euros, etc. in your pocket vs in your electronic bank account - hint: If you didn't realize that banks are some of today's largest data companies, read "Who Are The Three Biggest Data Companies In the World? 1) Google 2) the Fed 3) JP Morgan/ECB"

Many, if not most, are lulled into a false sense of security as they've been led to believe that since they have access to all of this information and all of these financial services, they live in a free and decentralized world. The fact of the matter is, they, you, we have access, but we have sold our control over our own data and capital for said access. That access that all enjoy - meeting friends of Facebook, storing files for later retrieval on Google or Dropbox, or even accessing your coin on Coinbase or money through a regulated bank - all, entail giving up control and data to a centralized data center. He/(she) who hath the (centralized) data center, has the control.

Centralized (A) is how the financial system looks today. Large regulated entities are at the venter of a bunch of other entities who freely send their capital and relinquisih full control of their monies to these central entities in order to access financial services for said capital. This risky for said centralized entities can collapse (MF Global), get hacked (JP Morgan, Citibank) or defraud (Madoff). These are major reasons why regulation is present and needed in such a system. Despite the fact that the flaws are evident, prevalent and pervasive in such a system even with superior solutions invented, this is where the VC money is going today. Veritaseum has multiple patents pending and a fully functional platform that moves us from Centralized (A) to Distributed (B). With Veritaseum, everyone becomes their own bank (without bankers), their own exchange (without brokers or centralized exchanges) and execute and enforce their own contracts (without courts and lawyers).  We can do this with similar or materially better functionality seen in the legacy system (reference "The Unbundling of a Money Center Bank") without anybody having to trust anybody else, whether it be a centralized institution (regulated or not) or a counterparty. This is all done through distributed, consensus driven software.

Veritaseum's business model is different. We actually benefit and profit by putting control back into the hands of the people. Our wallets rest on YOUR client and YOU keep control of your financial assets at ALL times unless you put them in contract (via our smart contracts technology). Even then, you have full insight into where your assets are and how they got there at nearly all times. Our ENTIRE business is conducted ON BLOCKCHAIN - for all to see. 

We make financial asset trading a distributed affair, hence, even though certain entities may have (or are pursuing) gatekeeper status through supernormal control of the data chokepoints, we enable you to still ride on top of their infrastructure and trade value directly with other, on a peer tp peer basis (in terms of capital) while maintaining full control of your assets. We call this ability to retain control of your money, and of your assets, Economic SoveriegntyVeritaseum's CEO was one of the very few (if not only) market participants to warn about Lehman Brothers (see Is Lehman really a lemming in disguise? Thursday, February 21st, 2008) and Bear Stearns months before they collapsed (reference Is this the Breaking of the Bear? March 17th 2008). He is now issuing the warning signals again.

Centralized business models in financial services

The blockchain is capable of mollifyiing the rentseeking effects of centralization and concentration of power through data gatekeepers and server farms.

Veritaseum aims to disintermediate the banking system by congealing the business processes of Wall Street banks into software and code that lives and thrives in the cloud, and the blockchain in particular.

smartcontrats infographic

This DACe in the cloud allows disparate consumers of banking products and services to purchase said services directly from each other through Veritasum using unbreachable smart contracts as the medium.

Veritaseum Pitch Deck 

Download Veritaseum here.

Purchase our tradeable token, Veritase - the intellectual capital commodity, here.

Contact Veritaseum here.

Monday, 11 May 2015 00:00

How to Sell Tokens and Not Violate Securities Laws Featured

Written by
Rate this item
(3 votes)

As many who follow this space may know, we have created a unique cryptographic asset, a software token, to raise awareness of our operation. It has been a much more difficult and harrowing endeavor than we ever thought it would be. Oustide of doing something different than everyone else, we found it harrowing to attempt to weave through the various interpretations of what a security is and isn't. The following blog post series is the result of our canvassing the big minds in the very limited arena of lawyers who fully understand the Blockchain and crypto asseets as well as the law (as it pertains to the former). I say this not to be condescending, but to point out how small such a club actually is and how absolutely necessary it is for that club membership to expand dramatically. 

The last thing any start up with less than a $100 million in funding needs is a cease and desist, or worse yet, a subpoena from a federal or state agency. We turned on the commenting facility of the site just for this series, and welcome one and all to openly participate in this discussion - particularly the legal community, those who have issued or purchased assets, and even regulatory representatives. I figure it is better to get this out in the open than to creep around hoping nothing happens. The vast majority of participants in the 2.0 space that I have met are hard working, honest individuals who do not mean to break the rules. I would like all to realize that and to take it into consideration. Our Crypto Asset can be purchased here, with a presentation hereThus, without further adieu, I present the first in a series of legal lectures (purposely cast in layman's language) on crypto assets, securities issuance and software tokens by the well spoken Jason Seibert an engineer and securities attorney.

How to Sell Tokens and Not Violate Securities Laws 

by Jason Seibert

Congratulations! You figured out how to code and you think you want to raise money by way of a “Token” offering to help get your business off the ground. If you don’t know how to code, or you don’t know what a “Token” offering is, then this article really isn’t for you. I’m not going to take the time to explain the Blockchain to you, or side chains, or mining, or really anything other than how to sell someone a “Token” and not violate the state or federal securities laws.

This will be a multi-part series at the request of Mr. Middleton and I’m happy to provide this information on a generic level. Honestly, if at any time you have a more detailed question, or need to know specifics, that’s a good thing – try to communicate those questions in the comments section attached to this blog and I’ll see if I can address your concerns in a few words. If it’s a complex issue though, you might want to consult with your attorney. On that note – standard disclaimer folks – your facts may be different than my facts and my analysis, so if you rely solely on this information without consulting an attorney, you are pretty much on your own, although you will be headed down the right path. Walk with care.

  1. Episode One: First thing’s first – are you selling a token, or are you selling a security?

The more you are selling a product, the less likely you are selling a security. If you have a user’s guide that accompanies your Token instead of an offering document, you are probably on the right track (you are smart folks, you know how to look around at what other people are doing and copy and paste from the interwebnets – if someone’s document says “offering document” on it, you probably want to think twice about using it). Think of it this way – if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it’s probably a duck. If you publish an online statement about how excited you are about your “ICO” (initial coin offering), you are headed down the path of a security; however, if you publish an online statement about how excited you are to be selling software and how people can get an advanced ticket to ride, then you are probably headed down the path of selling a product. Get it?

By way of example, let’s say I’ve decided to release a new product based on existing blanket technology utilized in the Snuggie ™ market, and I’m going to call it the “Snuggie of Things” (listen, this is a parody and I have no intention of offering this product, nor do I have any intention of violating any intellectual property laws here folks – I do, however, plan to utilize the fantastic qualities of my Snuggie ™ whenever possible – don’t judge me). To avoid crossing into the securities laws, I pretty much just have to offer the blanket and nothing else – oh, right, and I should probably sell the blankets myself. Keep it simple. However, if I offer to pre-sale the comfortable lounging blankets and claim that they will increase in value and that a secondary market will develop prior to the release of the “Snuggie of Things,” and I offer the pre-sale of blankets through a third-party vendor along with an offering document and describe it as a “IBO” (initial blanket offering) – then I’m pretty much selling securities – or at least that’s what the regulators will say. Get it?

If you want me to actually quote the dozen or so state and federal securities laws that support this point of view, you’ll have to pay me to do it, or you could trust in the fact that the securities laws are broadly interpreted and designed to adapt to the ever changing ways people try to raise money by taking it from other people.

Are there arguments that Token sales are not securities? Sure. Pretty easy ones to make, if you only look at the Federal Securities laws in a micro-vacuum without consideration of 70+ years of jurisprudence, or if you don’t know what a merit review state is, or if you have never faced cease and desist orders from multiple jurisdictions, or if you rely on what your friend’s attorney said over drinks.

But, but…my attorneys told me I wasn’t selling securities??

Great, okay, you asked your attorney if you were selling a security and what did you tell him or her? “It’s just software,” right? Did you tell them everything? Or did you tell your attorney what you thought they wanted to hear after you read a few cases I hinted at above? Chances are if your attorney actually understood what a Token is, or how you’ve worded your “software sale” they probably would have told you that you are going to have to ask for permission or beg for forgiveness later.

My favorite case involving “software” actually comes from SEC v. Glenn W. Turner Enterprises and derived from my great state of Oregon in 1973. SEC v. Glenn W. Turner Enterprises, 474 F.2d 476 (1973) Glenn Turner sold self-improvement cassette tapes (don’t get all retro hipster on me, yes, they sold cassette tapes, stay focused) under the “Dare to be Great” slogan. How it worked: Part of the program included a portion of income through the sale of cassette tapes to people, who, in turn, could have the opportunity to sell the program and tapes to others. Turner argued he was just selling tapes. The federal court determined, which was upheld by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, that because of the remedial nature of the securities laws, the statute should be broadly interpreted to include schemes that in substance, if not form, are securities. You see, when the purchaser of the “software” was told he or she could sell the product him or herself, and make money doing it, that was enough. This case created the “functional test.” End result? Permanent injunction and asset seizure. What does it mean? If the contract functions like a security, no amount of efforts to claim it is not a security will convince the courts. Now, listen, your attorney may tell you that selling cassettes and an opportunity to sell cassette tapes is different than what you are doing – that’s great, good for you – you’ve paid your attorney to tell you what you want to hear. I’m telling you that when it comes to defending a regulatory action, if you have to explain what you are doing, you have already lost and you should get ready for a long and expensive fight. So – how do you explain what you are doing?

You: “Listen, man, it’s just software, we are advance-selling a ticket to be able to use the software in the future. It’s like Kickstarter meets Mozilla because we have a non-profit that will be funded through the token sale, and that might contribute to our for-profit development of the open-sourced ecosystem software that will power this nascent technology into a newer, more disruptive, blockchain 2.0 and Web3.0 space…did I mention Internet of Things – it’s totally about the Internet of Things” (Note – make sure you use a lot of fancy buzzwords that only you and your FinTech startup friends use to dazzle your attorney.)

Your attorney: “Oh, I see, okay. Well, if you are selling something others are going to use, then that wouldn’t be a security. That will be $300,000 for our in-depth, boiler-plate, analysis that we’ve done a hundred times and maybe we took the time to cut and paste your company’s name into the document we gave you.”

REALITY

When you sell a “Token,” what are you selling? If company “A” offers to sell you a token, which you can convert into a usable element of software at a later date (because it hasn’t actually been developed yet), on the surface, it is a worthless transaction that promises you nothing but the very ether it occupies. You have no way of recovering your value unless the company actually succeeds in creating its product, or, as is pitched in the sales effort, you can resell your “token” in a secondary market, where its value may increase. Speculative acquisition of a contract for future potential performance with no guarantees of success, but for the potential for increased value through a secondary market, is the kind of risky venture that has plagued the securities laws for hundreds of years. This type of offering, a general solicitation because it is published to the internet, would fail review in nearly every state securities regulator’s office in the union.

But you think the Jobs Act and Regulation A+ means you won’t violate the securities laws. Think again. You actually have to register your offerings with the SEC and follow complex filing rules, including filing pre-sale documents with both the Securities and Exchange Commission and with any state you are going to sell. Regulation A+ also says that unless you are selling an equity interest, or a security convertible into an equity interest, Regulation A+ is not for you. A “Token” is not an equity interest, nor is it convertible into an equity interest.

But you think you are going to rely on Section 4(a)(6) of the 33 act – A.K.A.  Crowdfunding Exemption. A crowdfunding exemption is an exemption from registering the sale of securities and has certain requirements to comply. In short – you are selling securities.

You can attempt to bypass the securities laws, or rely on exemptions to avoid registration, but the simple truth is – just don’t sell securities and you won’t have to worry about it.

 

Prior to becoming a lawyer, Mr. Seibert was the Senior Data Engineer at Integra Telecom, Inc. for the Northwest Region, the Senior Data Communications Analyst for Electric Lightwave, Inc., a data engineering contractor for several technology firms, a Field Engineer for Digital Equipment Corporation, and an Electronic and Computer Switching Systems Journeyman at Cheyenne Mountain Air Station, HQNORAD, USAF, Colorado Springs, Colorado and a member of the 21st Space Command 721st Communications Squadron. Mr. Seibert is a licensed attorney, in good standing, admitted to the Oregon State Bar, the United States District Court for the District of Oregon, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (a.k.a. “The Rocket Docket”), the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Mr. Seibert has worked in both plaintiff and defense cases involving securities issues and Bitcoin, and has represented parties across the United States in state, federal, arbitral, and administrative proceedings.

Please comment below.

My Twitter Updates

From Commun.it
Less than a minute ago
From Commun.it
ReggieMiddleton @solidandliquids @Noc27068193 @amaresh_padhi - Happy to connect, have a great day :)
About 2 hours ago
From Commun.it
ReggieMiddleton @thetweetmaestro @nguyenatang - Happy to have you in my community :)
Saturday, 23 September 2017 00:03
From Commun.it
ReggieMiddleton @nguyenatang @thetweetmaestro - Hello :) Happy to meet you, have a great day :)
Saturday, 23 September 2017 00:03
From Commun.it
ReggieMiddleton @nooz81 @exponentreturn - Hello :) Happy to meet you, have a great day :)
Friday, 22 September 2017 23:36

Right add

Newsletter

Tell Us What You Think

Which forensic research are you most apt to buy?
Right add (2)

Contact

Veritaseum

1-718-407-4751

info@veritaseum.com