Agreed, that's one that's going to be tricky and sticky. Because you're not being offered MONEY, just a TOKEN. And just like getting paid in common stock by a public corporation, getting a token doesn't come with a promise that it has a specific value. So when someone flags someone else, they're not taking away money. At least that's how the sharkster lawyers will defend it.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
WhatsUP might want to read the part where a exchange shut down or did not open and investors lost money....the investors said they did it deliberately to save their own investment but the company said there was something wrong with their program. Any "insider" mention where one group bans together at the detriment of the rest of the group or manipulation to stop the flow of currency to part of the group would be considered a violation.
No one is asking you to invest or stay or participate. If you think it is a ponzi scheme surely you would like to avoid it.
Why? I would be one of those who would be considered hurt by the scheme. In other words I played at the advantage of those in the upper tier with the odds being greatly stacked against me to get to the top. Unless I make it to the top I don't have much to fear from the feds if for some reason they ever did get investigated. You can see in the release from the chairman he even states a lot of these crypto markets hinge on the edge of being ponzi's. I am not saying that would be found here but we would never know exactly where that would fold out unless it was investigated for some reason. Seeing that crypto's seem to considered a process in new innovation according to the release by the chairman I would though strongly recommend discouraging writing future articles during a downturn in the market that give the appearance of collusion to protect certain investors investments that could hurt other investors. This is a monetary system where large sums of money are at stake and it should be taken with the respect it deserves. Sure I joke around by the fraction of pennies and pennies but several hundred people have quite a stake in those pennies from years of working at it if someone with several hundred thousand could prove they were left out in the cold by cries of certain members to band together to protect their investment one would only be as anonymous to the feds as Ned felt he'd need to go to prison for them. Some people like to think this blockchain is some sort of untouchable decentralized system but it's only as untouchable as the known names to enforcement and how much time they'd like to spend in the slammer. I'd also recommend that flagging people for censorship to the point of taking everything out of their wallets discontinue along with threats of being able to do the same. A wallet is no different then a bank account and it's held to the same standards. On here one of two things have probably kept people from filing a compliant with the feds, one they don't know they are protected by the same banking laws as a regular banking account or they
haven't lost enough to make it worth
filing a compliant to them. Someday
though someone just might lose enough. Taking money because someone said something someone didn't like isn't a reason to demolish someone's account, abuse or cheating the system would be different. As crypto become a increasing part of the monetary system people need to protect themselves by acknowledging and abiding by the rules set forth in state and federal laws, sometimes claiming ignorance works but who wants to go there to find out. Crypto's are no longer a laughing matter, you need to look at the rules and apply your conduct accordingly to protect yourself. Whether steem swims or sinks is going to depend on everyone working together to uphold the integrity and value of the system from top to bottom.
Well I guess YOU missed the release by the SEC chairman on Cypto currency. Don't worry though for I did find it for you. Here's what he said:
Merely calling a token a "utility" token or structuring it to provide some utility does not prevent the token from being a security.[15] Tokens and offerings that incorporate features and marketing efforts that emphasize the potential for profits based on the entrepreneurial or managerial efforts of others continue to contain the hallmarks of a security under U.S. law. It is especially troubling when the promoters of these offerings emphasize the secondary market trading potential of these tokens, i.e., the ability to sell them on an exchange at a profit. In short, prospective purchasers are being sold on the potential for tokens to increase in value – with the ability to lock in those increases by reselling the tokens on a secondary market – or to otherwise profit from the tokens based on the efforts of others. These are key hallmarks of a security and a securities offering.
So a TOKEN is considered MONEY
He also said this:
As I have stated previously, these market participants should treat payments and other transactions made in cryptocurrency as if cash were being handed from one party to the other.
I also took this to mean you CANNOT just take someone else's investment out of THEIR wallet:
There should be no misunderstanding about the law. When investors are offered and sold securities – which to date ICOs have largely been –they are entitled to the benefits of state and federal securities laws and sellers and other market participants must follow these laws.
If you'd like to read the whole statement released please feel free to do so:
https://www.sec.gov/news/testimony/testimony-virtual-currencies-oversight-role-us-securities-and-exchange-commission
By the end of it you will fully understand that innovations have occurred throughout history....and they've all ended up coming under the same regulations that old innovations have and that the SEC does not tend to take likely violations and have already went to bat for some losses of crypto funds.
OK, I'll bite. What do you believe the solution might be? Or what should happen?
If we do away with flags, there's no longer ANY disincentive for someone to come in here and do something "scammy" to fill their pockets, haejin style.
If we say "Steemit needs to ban scammy accounts" then the whole freedom, and non-censorship and — for that matter — the idea of decentralization goes right down the toilet... Steemit basically become "Farcebook with tokens."
But this seems to have wandered a bit from the original discussion of Steemit as a Ponzi.
Just my opinion would be that if someone filed a compliant because their wallet was zero'd out over abuse they'd be found to have abused the monetary system, the current system in place to deal with abusers would more than likely be found adequate given it's a new technology. Therefore it would seem to me their complaint would be unfounded based on abuse/fraud/scam, on the other hand zeroing out someone's account because you didn't like what they said would be considered illegal, just as illegal as if someone said something you didn't like and walked into a bank and emptied your account out over it. You have to use reasonable judgement when reaching beyond flagging a article or comment over something said into their wallet for further punishment versus doing so over abuse/fraud/scams. Every system it would seem to me has to have it's safeguards, this is unfolding new technology, there has to be a way to reign in bad actors but that same reign doesn't stretch to those wanting to use it for censorship.