You're smart and you're correct. Even hive itself i believe would be classified as an unreqistered security. So what this means is if you put your money into these projects you taking tremendous risks and you can forget institutions putting a dime of their money into these projects which is why they don't
So they've tried to ostracize me for telling the truth because they want to live in delusion and they never succeed. if you create a project and sell an investment where people can profit from the work of others and not you then you don't pass the howey test which means every project here has violated the howey test but one i believe.
the only safe one is bitcoin myk and bbd coin. that is because all the coins are distributed free it is your value that mints the token and even if it does violate securities laws we're well equipped to adapt to a 501c3
meaning of course we already give the tokens away so then it becomes a token charity..so some would go that's stupid why would you do that? well a currency doesn't need to go up in value it only needs liquidity. it's like your currency in your pocket now. you don't care if it gains or loses you just wanna exchange it for goods so you don't carry big objects around.
and as you get more with us through the citizens dividend. So investing any money in crypto with the exception of bitcoin and i'd say bitcoin myk is a risk that i wouldn't take. its just pure gambling. this is why the markets will always crash 90% because without protection nobody is going to have confidence in them
even bitcoin if we're honest is so heavily manipulated. i mean you're still gambling to a large degree at this point and you can go gamble in las vegas and yield similar results if we're being for real
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta
That's an interesting take, and one that certainly needs thinking about. On the one hand, all crypto-currencies could potentially fall under some fairly stringent regulatory attention, should the authorities decide to turn their attentions to any of them.
And yet, there are many - utility tokens for one - that serve primarily as a useful mechanism within a game or project, rather than a traditional security.
For example, there have been many massive multiplayer games over the years that use in-game purchases or in-game items that can be bought or traded, which did not, before the age of cryptocurrency, fall under such legal scrutiny. But these days such games employ in-game assets as crypto-tokens (as in Splinterlands), which suddenly puts your project into the category of a financial institution.
I think my point is that governments are still lagging behind in many ways. They hear the word "crypto" in regards to a project and lump it in with securities and finance, when the tokenisation of the web will be far more nuanced than that.
It's just a shame that such legal ambiguity might either put some developers off, or place others developers into potential legal strife.