A little perspective: Bitcoin Foundation received a cease and desist order from the State of California back in 2013 (link below). It shows how far we have come in crypto world and this tag of war between regulators and innovators will continue until crypto adoption reach critical mass.
Colorado Cracks Down On Two Companies For Illegal ICO Promotion
The Colorado Department of Regulatory Agencies (DORA) announced its investigation of two companies for promoting unlawful Initial Coin Offerings (ICOs) to Colorado residents, the Denver Post reported May 3. The Colorado Securities Commissioner said that California-based Linda Healthcare Corp. and Washington-based Broad Investments LLC could potentially be violating Colorado securities law by promoting ICOs. https://preview.redd.it/gbc8k7gmhuv01.jpg?width=725&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=09174c0318ee10e236a6a6c6e4ea98803fd37a15 DORA discovered that Linda Healthcare is promoting a “LindaHealthCoin” token on its website, which ostensibly can be used to purchase Linda Healthcare’s insurance. According to the website, the token can buy telemedical coverage “through an artificial intelligence chat service that creates medical solutions through use of blockchain technology.” According to DORA, Linda Healthcare offers no warnings that ICOs constitute a security in the state of Colorado. “The Linda Health Insurance network is, to date, not in operation,” officials reported. A March 19 tweet from the firm directs potential customers to consult its white paper. As Denver Post reports, Broad Investments firm is allegedly promoting cryptocurrency using a token that is described on its website as “an equity coin that represents shares of the company, like company stocks.” The token would ostensibly give holders a right to a share in returns from Broad Investments’ strategy, which builds stock portfolios with an algorithm. Officials say that the “math-oriented value system” on the website was not operational. DORA representatives reported that both companies did not provide any information on the risks of investing in crypto or ICOs on their websites. Colorado Securities Commissioner Gerald Rome commented that investments in ICO tokens should be done carefully: “Investment opportunities being sold through ICOs over the internet need to be approached with the same level of caution as for any highly risky investment venture.” The firms must now prove why the should not be sanctioned under the Colorado Securities Act, according to which the firms will receive cease and desist orders. Earlier in March, the Massachusetts Securities Division issued consent orders requiring the permanent suspension of five firms’ unregistered ICO sales, citing that the companies were selling unregistered securities. Source
Bitcoin is a program made by people on the Internet you download and run
Nobody "owns" Bitcoin just like nobody owns BitTorrent and other online protocols (agreements in how we transfer data)
California is sending a letter to a company that develops the software for not having licenses to transmit money (they make software, not transmit money)
As pointed out by another poster, similar precedent was set with the LimeWire case where defendants were ruled against for developing software for their users actions. I made this post so people can manage their expectations and understand how things play out in response and why so many people are using crypto tools now like RetroShare, TOR, and I2P. If they start targeting or intimidating people like Gavin and other developers all you will see is those developers disappear and be replaced by entirely anonymous developers - quite possibly the same people and you'll never prove it even if you are monitoring their internet connections. The same is true for making rules against whistle-blowers. All you're going to get now are purely anonymous leaks, probably very slowly over time to protect the interests of the leaker. Please start using more crypto tools and help make those networks robust. Thanks!
Study Highlights 46 percent of Past ICOs Took Place Without Working Plan in Place
While the ICO market is showing no signs of slowing down, a study by an Amsterdam-based company that specializes in rating ICOs, ICO Rating, has highlighted that a total of 412 projects raised a whopping $3.3 billion in the first quarter of 2018 alone. This figure represents a five percent increase over the capital raised in the last quarter in 2017. The most shocking revelation made by the study, however, was that 46 percent of the companies looking to raise capital did not have actually start any development until the date of the ICO, a worrying concern for the industry. https://preview.redd.it/hb6z6xsmjtw01.jpg?width=780&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=8236a0f30e60839130cbdf333f2d9e51af9bbc97 Highlights of the Report The research, titled ‘ICO Market Research Q1 2018,’ noted the total amount raised by the ICO industry to be at around $6.14 billion. It reported that only half of the total companies managed to raise an amount that exceeded $100,000. While the Telegram ICO, better known as the TON project, managed to bag $1.7 billion, it was not considered in the sample size. The report highlighted that several companies tend to not disclose internal management, capital allocation or operational structure. Furthermore, nine firms that had managed a successful ICO closed down.Legal Hurdles for ICOs Many countries and financial institutions do not view ICOs as a legal source of fund-raising or the issued token as a security. This makes legality a key problem of the industry. However, more than a quarter of the companies involved in ICOs actually had no legal entity at the time of raising capital. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman, Jay Clayton, issued a statement in December 2017, stating, “A number of concerns have been raised regarding the cryptocurrency and ICO markets, including that, as they are currently operating, there is substantially less investor protection than in our traditional securities markets, with correspondingly greater opportunities for fraud and manipulation.” He then said: “Investors should understand that to date no initial coin offerings have been registered with the SEC. The SEC also has not to date approved for listing and trading any exchange-traded products (such as ETFs) holding cryptocurrencies or other assets related to cryptocurrencies.” There could be one possible way for any company to do an ICO without triggering the SEC’s registration requirement. For this, the initial coin offering has to be structured in a way similar to that employed by companies manufacturing physical products, using a Regulation D exempt.SEC Intervention in the ICO Market In December 2017, the SEC forced a California-based company to temporarily suspend its ICO after it grew suspicious amid registration concerns surrounding the company. The company in question, Munchee Inc., was later forced to return all capital raised by the ICO to its investors. The company also consented to the cease and desist order of the SEC. Later in January 2018, the SEC obtained a court order to suspend Arise Bank’s $600 million ICO for a decentralized bank. According to CNBC reports, the SEC said in its complaint that: “The ICO is an illegal offering of securities because there is no registration filed or in effect with the SEC, nor is there an applicable exemption from registration.” A report by Ernst and Young highlighted that ten percent of the total combined amount raised by companies from an ICO had been lost to hackers. The study said that regulators were now beginning to regulate them rather than ignore them. “ICOs have become synonymous with hype and excessive risk,” said the report, before adding, “The future of ICOs will be determined by the transparency of blockchain technology and the ability to set new standards that are accepted by all participants.” Source #Cryptocurrency #ICO #Blockchain #TokenSale #daico #w12 #Token #AI #coin #bonus #platform #bitcoin #ethereum #crypto #currencies #project #marketplace #cryptotrading #icoinvest #iconews #technology #platformmarket #SEC #Market #RegulationD #California #US #industry #ETFs #TON
California issued cease and desist order against Bitcoin Foundation June 24, 2013 Mohit Kumar The Bitcoin Foundation has received a cease-and-desist letter from the California Department of Financial Institutions, which oversees banks, credit unions, and other financial organizations operating in the state. The Bitcoin Foundation has been sent a "cease and desist" letter from California's financial regulator for allegedly engaging in money transmission without a license. Bitcoin Foundation ordered to cease operations in California. Nonprofit organization devoted to promoting the virtual currency is accused of transmitting money without a license. CoinDesk – State of California’s “Spray And Pray” Hits Bitcoin Foundation: . Reporter Danny Bradbury (@DannyBradbury) of CoinDesk.com describes the cease and desist (C&D) order given by the State of California’s financial regulator, Department of Financial Institutions (@CaliforniaDFI), to the Bitcoin Foundation (@BTCFoundation).Excerpts: The head of tech startup incubator Y Combinator, Peter Vessenes, framed the legal squabbles in starker terms: “The state of California is blanket [cease and desisting] all Bitcoin businesses.”