That said, a lot of these subtleties are lost on non-native English speakers, which at the moment is probably the majority of the Swarm.
The full letter can be read here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1b6krYF6rMECtTwmTjbcZWZ0l...
That said, a lot of these subtleties are lost on non-native English speakers, which at the moment is probably the majority of the Swarm.
The full letter can be read here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1b6krYF6rMECtTwmTjbcZWZ0l...
> To put it bluntly – every bitcoin actor should be reading the law very carefully and finding the loopholes. You should all invest a great deal of time in this – it is hugely important. For example, are you really moving ‘currency’ or are you simply exchanging some sort of token?
> Companies need to just carry on doing what they are doing, if they can make a case for themselves that they don’t need regulation, they shouldn’t even go near it. ... [They] should read the rules, argue why they are not covered by the rules and use that analysis as a defence, but they should only ask for permission if they are sure it is necessary.
Regardless, great positions.
It sank in. ;)
Are you aware of the extensive fraud that has been perpetrated in the this space?
This is not a new field, it's got a couple years of history, and very little of it is pretty.
What are you doing that makes you think you'll be different?
Fundamentally what we are trying to do is stay on the right side of what is a very fuzzy line between what we can and can't do, while offering something that is incrementally but substantially better than all previous funding platforms. I think this is eminently possible because even a relatively simple feature like the distributed voting we are doing (http://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/news/swarmcoin-holders-vote-c...) provides a rather significant amount of benefits relative to existing offerings.
Of course, people hear "cryptoequity" and they immediately think "stock." The reality is far more complex... and interesting.