ICOs at the End of 2017: What We Think We Know and What We Don't Know

Re:ICOs at the End of 2017: What We Think We Know and What W... by AlexCoventry on Tuesday October 17, 2017 @03:37PM (#15494164)

> Switzerland-based Tezos said it did not specifically exclude investors from any country from participating.

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/07/18/hot-digital-currency-trend-m...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:ICOs at the End of 2017: What We Think We Know and What W... by wrench604 on Tuesday October 17, 2017 @04:12PM (#15494481)

This ico happened before the sec bulletin was issued:

https://www.sec.gov/oiea/investor-alerts-and-bulletins/ib_co...

Do you have any more recent examples?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:ICOs at the End of 2017: What We Think We Know and What W... by AlexCoventry on Tuesday October 17, 2017 @10:30PM (#15496451)

I haven't been following closely, recently, but literally the first one I checked has no check on residency [0], which is enough to bring it under SEC jurisdiction if the sale goes over other thresholds.[1]

Sales before and after the bulletin are subject to the same laws.

[0] https://etherparty.io/ico/contribute

[1] https://www.sec.gov/divisions/corpfin/internatl/foreign-priv...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:ICOs at the End of 2017: What We Think We Know and What W... by relyio on Tuesday October 17, 2017 @03:51PM (#15494266)

There were lots of disclaimers saying:

>"Every potential participant in the fundraiser is responsible for determining the legality of participation within their jurisdiction."

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:ICOs at the End of 2017: What We Think We Know and What W... by AlexCoventry on Tuesday October 17, 2017 @04:23PM (#15494577)

It was totally legal for US residents to participate, as far as I know. I believe almost all the securities-law obligations resulting from the sale are on Tezos. (Not a lawyer.) The only obligation on buyers might be that they can't resell it without being guilty of selling an unregistered security themselves.

[ Parent | on HN ]