US Regulator Bullies ICOs Before a Court or Congress Has Ruled on Whether Tokens Are a Security – Trustnodes

US Regulator Bullies ICOs Before a Court or Congress Has Ruled on Whether Tokens Are a Security


We all know of SEC, CFTC, FinCEN, OCC and countless of other acronyms, but now there’s a new one, the North American Securities Administrators Association (NASAA).

They’re apparently a voluntary body, yet they’ve been going around sending cease-and-desist letters to individuals from 40 jurisdictions “warning” them that their ICO might be an “unregistered security.”

What court told this voluntary body no one has heard of that tokens are a security, we do not know. Not least because there has been no such decision in any jurisdiction with the first case to decide the matter to begins on January 7th when a jury will decide whether tokens are a security, rather than some acronym.

Yet that hasn’t stopped this guild protectionist body from sending its president, Joseph Borg (pictured), to tell the public:

“We’re putting ourselves in the shoes of investors. We’re seeing what’s being promoted to investors. And then we’re taking the next step and then we’re finding out whether they’re complying with securities laws.”

Of course, for the good of the children, not because ICOs compete with old boring stocks which so far have enjoyed a monopoly that has led to the greatest wealth inequality in a century for Mr Bozos of Amazon, and his like,  faces little competition. So everyone keeps giving him money by buying his stocks despite Bozos publicly stating he has so much money he does not even know what to do with it.

“Posing as members of the public, investigators discovered roughly 30,000 cryptocurrency-related domain names in recent weeks,” Bezos’ Washington Post says.

How you can pose as a member of the public online when searching whois remains a bit of a mystery to us young ones who actually use this internet thing.

Just as it remains quite a bit of a mystery how these outdated institutions, of which a judge has stated have not reached “the 20th century, much less the 21st,” reach the conclusion that it is so fit for them to extend their jurisdiction to a very new global thing.

They apparently went so far as to bully a British kid, which might even be a scam we do not know, but how is it their jurisdiction?

Do the Brits now need to comply with Chinese laws too, and Russian laws, and European laws even though they voted to leave the EU? And if US or EU law is to apply and to be respected, then why should Russian or Chinese law be ignored?

Are we then to comply with the laws of 134 countries because we want to sell some Cryptokitties? Just because some unelected bureaucrats find it fit to use the law to protect their monopolies which have been stealing from the working public for five decades during which period the people have seen no wage growth while stock billionaires complain they have so much money they don’t know what to do with it.

Why, pay your workers! Better still, tear down that securities act barbaric wall which chains our feet to only monopoly stock companies that nowadays give no better returns than saving accounts.

But, nay, god forbid if the people were able to directly participate in the value creation process by directly investing in promising start-ups. How will these fat cats become fatter then?



Comments (2)

  1. I sense some misdirected anger. Letting people commit fraud is not a useful reallocation of resources and does the opposite of decreasing inequality and financial consolidation. If you want to advocate for or against particular legislation or regulations, there are more useful way to shift the tide toward greater access and equity. As a starting point, exemptions from regulation can be very strong motivators of problematic behavior. For example, the JOBS Act of 2012 created an new exemption from securities regulation for accredited investors (high income/ high net worth). This had the dual effect of (1) incentivizing firms to only sell to the very rich and thereby avoid following disclosure requirements and (2) limiting recourse for people who lose a lot of money (think a senior with a mature retirement account).

  2. When did this site turn into a platform for people to rant like children? “Bozos”? Grow the fuck up.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>