I was not in EOS from the beginning and am quite a newcomer to the crypto world. The more I learn about the various ventures the more concerned I get about what I am getting involved in. It is quite the rabbit hole. There are good points but there are piles of poop in there as well.
I have a habit of skimming white papers in order to see whether something is a good idea and will succeed as a venture rather than delve into the nitty gritty and the minutae. ie. I tend to look at things as an investment opportunity rather than the entity that is created. I am very concerned about the entity, EOS and the role of Block One however I feel it is necessary to get involved with it (meaning many people ought to) because it has the potential to replace ethereum and actually become the first fit-for-use smart contract blockchain in the real world.
I digress. What is being discussed here is whether it is a security or not. Initially I would have said no it isn't but tokenised rights in a co-op. However......that part on the utility having no function made me think of one company that was set up in the middle of the South Sea Company maelstrom
"a company for carrying out an undertaking of great advantage, but nobody to know what it is"
Swap company for token and you have EOS. So not comfortable with that at all. I have a feeling that whoever made this "legal' document was not up to scratch and its use was unfortunate. It does, however, scream security. Just because inactivity renders them to be seized and auctioned off does not mean they cannot be classed as securities. Things like warrants become worthless if not used by the holder after a set period of time.
However this is the wrong argument. The right one is "who cares if they are securities"? Plenty of countries have unregulated securities markets. The argument is being carried out in the US because capitalism there is run along plutocratic rather than populist, democratic or bottom-up lines.
If the US does not soften up it will find that it becomes increasingly less important in a borderless form of capitalism. It's citizens who want to take part in these worldwide unregulated markets will just wait until the securities hit the decentralised exchanges bypassing things like KYC. In fact the more hardline the SEC becomes the greater the likelihood that decentralized exchanges will take off.
If the US want to be more than a bit player in the new world capitalism (new world order - sorta - mOO!) that is evolving they are going to have to have a big rethink.
Go here https://steemit.com/@a-a-a to get your post resteemed to over 72,000 followers.
Go here https://steemit.com/@a-a-a to get your post resteemed to over 72,000 followers.
I was not in EOS from the beginning and am quite a newcomer to the crypto world. The more I learn about the various ventures the more concerned I get about what I am getting involved in. It is quite the rabbit hole. There are good points but there are piles of poop in there as well.
I have a habit of skimming white papers in order to see whether something is a good idea and will succeed as a venture rather than delve into the nitty gritty and the minutae. ie. I tend to look at things as an investment opportunity rather than the entity that is created. I am very concerned about the entity, EOS and the role of Block One however I feel it is necessary to get involved with it (meaning many people ought to) because it has the potential to replace ethereum and actually become the first fit-for-use smart contract blockchain in the real world.
I digress. What is being discussed here is whether it is a security or not. Initially I would have said no it isn't but tokenised rights in a co-op. However......that part on the utility having no function made me think of one company that was set up in the middle of the South Sea Company maelstrom
"a company for carrying out an undertaking of great advantage, but nobody to know what it is"
Swap company for token and you have EOS. So not comfortable with that at all. I have a feeling that whoever made this "legal' document was not up to scratch and its use was unfortunate. It does, however, scream security. Just because inactivity renders them to be seized and auctioned off does not mean they cannot be classed as securities. Things like warrants become worthless if not used by the holder after a set period of time.
However this is the wrong argument. The right one is "who cares if they are securities"? Plenty of countries have unregulated securities markets. The argument is being carried out in the US because capitalism there is run along plutocratic rather than populist, democratic or bottom-up lines.
If the US does not soften up it will find that it becomes increasingly less important in a borderless form of capitalism. It's citizens who want to take part in these worldwide unregulated markets will just wait until the securities hit the decentralised exchanges bypassing things like KYC. In fact the more hardline the SEC becomes the greater the likelihood that decentralized exchanges will take off.
If the US want to be more than a bit player in the new world capitalism (new world order - sorta - mOO!) that is evolving they are going to have to have a big rethink.