@JeffTyler287572
Account based inUnited Kingdom
About this account
- Account based in
- United Kingdom
- Connected via
- United Kingdom App Store
Account-level information from X, not a live location or the device used for a specific post.
Watching a new world emerge with blockchain and AI. Learning
Joined March 2024
- Tweets2.1K
- Following835
- Followers392
- Likes37.9K
Hi @Marc_Fagel Is there an interpretation in US law that when people have a collective interest in asset price appreciation, and engage in coordinated efforts to drive up the price of an asset, through rhetoric and promotion, then this technically forms a partnership (when focusing on the structure and outcome of their efforts).
It is not necessary, in fact, for the business to be formalised in writing; the conduct of the parties determines if a ‘partnership’/common enterprise exists. The key elements would be mutual consent, a shared business purpose, and the intention to divide profits or benefits derived from that shared purpose.
Also Marc, is it true that Bitcoin is a security, technically (it has a creator/s and individuals who work on it etc), but one that isn’t under SEC purview? So, it’s an ‘excluded security’? Also, was ETH given the infamous and supposed free pass because nobody promised investors monetary gain but the chance to invest in a ‘world computer’ (the problem for ETH founders is that they haven’t yet delivered on that promise and have changed to a new Proof of Stake System too)?
So, Bitcoin is a currency AND an ‘excluded security’, a monetary note (in the same way you have banknotes, promissory notes, indeed cash is a bank and treasury note—which are securities). Under current laws in the US, then, ALL cryptos are securities. What Ripple etc, and imo, want isn’t non-security status—as said, all tokens clearly are. It’s excluded security status, i.e. freedom from from SEC purview that’s sought (does this ring true @Marc_Fagel @JohnReedStark @CherryEmpress21 ?)
With regard the Ripple case, I remember an email from @MonicaLongSF who spoke of selling into good news on the back of various partnerships. The said good news, of course, would have been hyped by the legion of XRP influencers. In the eyes of a court of law, would this not constitute an unwritten partnership, of sorts (Long tacitly admits this in her message, it might be argued)?
@JohnReedStark , perhaps I should also have put the above questions to you too!
Hi @Marc_Fagel . In the world of finance, business, investment, securities etc. is it OK for those who create/part create, say, a new technology to remain anonymous/pseudonymous? Do/should the investing public have a fundamental right to put faces to names, in short? Many thanks
@GaryGensler @SECGov Respectfully, and given the known corruption and manipulation of crypto exchanges, would it not be advisable to demand that all market cap websites display data that emerges only from compliant exchanges. Any market cap site refusing to do so should be…
The roots of corruption in this industry are deep and the reason for non compliance linked to the fact that registration will mean exposure. However, there are good actors and promising developments. The law’s rightful and comprehensive protection will protect them and consumers