It's hard to decipher what those statements mean. Besides the fact that ICO is a can of worms that is likely to be targeted by the FDIC and other financial market regulators, which as I point out, is Dan Larimer backtracking on statements he made about this back in march last year, what do they mean 'non-transferrable'. That basically means the coins are worthless!

I'm sure the fanbois will go hell for leather on this one but I think this is not going to go well for this project, with the US govt requiring US citizens to declare cryptos at the border...

As @faddat and I discussed extensively before he lost the plot and ended up in deep shit in cambodia, the only safe path for a new blockchain project is through funding routes that the regulators don't consider their eminent domain. Private contracts between the developers and individuals who want to invest, involving no promise of return but a guaranteed share of part of the returns, and using the framework of the system for private applications within businesses are the two routes we worked out were the safest, and most honest.

However, because I am not entirely settled on the design of the protocol for consensus, I am not firm about either of these routes, and to be honest, unless I get my health in order with what I'm now engaged in, I won't be doing much development. But I feel confident that I will get over that hill and in the next or next after next month I will implement the 4 core protocols in my design that are required for the second funding option, and the framework upon which a ledger will be built on, for the first option.

I have a suspicion that actually I won't need to seek funding, with the way things are shaping up in the crypto world, I would prefer this, personally. There is no gotchas in this pathway of development, by entirely funding it from my own private surplus (and maybe others will join, with their own surpluses and skills to add to the team).