The terms of agreement are available on their website. Read them yourself.
Here is the epicenter interview video. Start at 59 minutes to directly here it from Dan's mouth. Everything they have raised is considered revenue or profit not investment in the project. The project already had the money to build EOS entirely before raising any money through an ICO.
Despite what is being said here, which I can certainly respect, it's all centered around the SEC and securities laws. Dan cannot say that people are purchasing an interest in block.one/EOS or that the EOS blockchain is operated by block.one as that could be considered a security, exposing them to securities violations. Further, this could trigger them to be required to return investments from Chinese citizens, as has been required of other ICOs where they were determined to be securities.
Another point which he said was that they funded the development from money they already had. This is critical, because it's likely these funds were investments from accredited investors which falls in line with the SEC rules for investment.
I hear nothing more than very careful speech centered around securities laws and wanting to not be a victim of this, for everyone's sake.
No source needed. It's in the terms of agreement, and Dan has said this personally in interviews.
Please provide proof if you’re going to make statements like this. What interview and what’s the line in the “terms of agreement” you’re referring to?
The terms of agreement are available on their website. Read them yourself.
Here is the epicenter interview video. Start at 59 minutes to directly here it from Dan's mouth. Everything they have raised is considered revenue or profit not investment in the project. The project already had the money to build EOS entirely before raising any money through an ICO.
Thank you for sharing that.
Despite what is being said here, which I can certainly respect, it's all centered around the SEC and securities laws. Dan cannot say that people are purchasing an interest in block.one/EOS or that the EOS blockchain is operated by block.one as that could be considered a security, exposing them to securities violations. Further, this could trigger them to be required to return investments from Chinese citizens, as has been required of other ICOs where they were determined to be securities.
Another point which he said was that they funded the development from money they already had. This is critical, because it's likely these funds were investments from accredited investors which falls in line with the SEC rules for investment.
I hear nothing more than very careful speech centered around securities laws and wanting to not be a victim of this, for everyone's sake.