The mere existence of a token does not create a security nor a liability. The provision of computation-as-a-service does not make one a money transmitter or securities exchange. Paying service providers-in-kind does not make the service providers issuers nor money transmitters.
Totally agree. The blockchain as is in its simplest terms a means to which a service or information can be written on a spreadsheet/ledger and the best part is that its immutability unlike Google sheets where in google has all the powers to change or alter anything should it wish to do so.
In this case blockchains such as EOS tokens and so on should not be considered a security nor a liability in this specific case.
yes . . . viewpoint is worth 80 IQ there is a saying
this is a very clear and clever way to explain to people who don't understand yet that tokens are not securities . . . that tokens are not securities
calling tokens securities . . . is calling a shared database service a security, which is absurd, exactly
i liked @dan's article from january as well about proof of stake and proof of work compared
Google will build its own block-chain software. It won't need EOS. You can bypass EOS and build you're own blockchain / dapp like dan did with steemit. Blockchain is just an open data base, not a big deal really.
Why would Google pay to hose their own blockchain, when EOS is free. If anything, they will likely copy the open source EOS software after launch. This makes EOS a really big deal.
Dear @dan Im Connor from UUNIO(reward driven social media marketplace) steemit+netflix version(https://uun.io) and we are desperate for your help, is there anyway I can contact you? my point view of a content is that a content should be rewarded as long as it exists just like expensive paintings. and Im trying to feed all the contents creators who post their masterpiece at facebook and youtube for free. we've designed to burn our reward tokens with intrinsic value like emojis and software goods. I wish we could have some of your advices..
aggrandizement
[uh-gran-diz-muh nt]
noun
1.an act or instance of aggrandizing, or increasing in size, or intensity:
aggrandizement of mercantile trade in the early colonies.
2.the act of making something appear greater than is actually warranted by the facts:
Some saw it as ego aggrandizement.
3.expansion of power, wealth, rank, or honor:
The department was used for the aggrandizement of its leaders.
Basically it's Dan making Ned feel small even after he left the platform. Ned doesn't like it.
Never heard of it, and I don't tend to trust projects that I haven't seen before so easily so this is what I think he will do, especially if you think that he has a lot of wealth distributed to his account, and all of this while copy-paste is not that hard. And there is another reason why he wouldn't try to post the same content in multiple places and that is because @cheetah will come after him with @steemcleaners.
MASDACS.io is a Steemit based project put on by Whaleshares and @officialfuzzy. I'm only just learning about it more myself. For all I know, the site may have been down doing updates. It's still in the works I believe, adding more platforms and such. I was joking more than anything. I also heard that @cheetah has been updated to not flag cross-publishing (RSS feed???) from certain platforms. Like the SteemPress plugin for example.
Another point of view is that it will allow flagging across all platforms in support. An abuser will be reprimanded on more than just Steemit. Kind of closes a spammer's options.
Well, I hope he won't try to create another Steem, because that would be competition, even more than Steem already has. If you think about it, it seems that there is going to be an eosfinex as competition for BitShares.
Competition for the social media blockchains might not be such a bad thing. Right now development is taking forever here on Steemit, so a little competition might end up leading to a better products for those of us who use it.
While Steemit Inc. owns the website Steemit, the Steem blockchain by itself is open source, and owned by all who have a stake in it (Steem Power in this case). It's not like Steemit Inc. owns the blockchain.
While Steemit Inc. owns the website Steemit, the Steem blockchain by itself is open source, and owned by all who have a stake in it (Steem Power in this case). It's not like Steemit Inc. owns the blockchain.
I like the analogy and I perfectly agree, there can't be a crime in technology
or medium itself, if some people choose to use it in any illegal way then this is completely different problem. There's still a lot of confusion around tokens and the general knowledge is still pretty poor, but it's improving and we're getting there!
In general, I agree with you that the issuers of the tokens are responsible for complying with the securities laws. There is a four part test under the Howey case decided by the U.S. Supreme Court that determines whether something is a security.
The test requires the following:
An investment of money.
An expectation of profits from the investment.
The investment of money is in a common enterprise.
Any profit comes from the efforts of a third party, such as the managers of the enterprise.
It shouldn't be difficult for the issuers of tokens to structure the tokens to avoid the application of the securities laws.
For the most part I agree with you that the service providers will not get into trouble under the securities laws, but where they may have some exposure is if they accept tokens in consideration for their services and those tokens are deemed to be securities. In that case, the service providers might need to register as broker-dealers under the securities laws to avoid liability, because if the providers are acquiring securities that they are then able to sell for their own account, they could be deemed to be broker-dealers. One way to avoid that would be for the providers to simply require payment in cash rather than accepting tokens as consideration for their services.
I'm sure block.one will review that issue carefully with its attorneys to avoid problems.
Am glad to see your post here on steemit @dan, In my own opinion I really don't see what business Google has with money exchange..
They should fixate on their company and how to improve it.
The post wasn't really about Google or their plans either. Was more of using what we already know about Google to express his own perspective and insight into blockchain technology as an service provider.
Hearing so many things about google hate for crypto lately. Don't know if by 2025 Google would have moved the backend of Google Sheets to a blockchain. It will be a nice move if it happens.
2025 would actually be too long for everyone to wait for Google to do this. The platform is already in place, the tools ready and the idea just got shared, am sure if Google won't do it, someone will be working on it this year. If that's launch maybe with the EOS.IO software, then Google will have a tough competitor.
Totally agree. The blockchain as is in its simplest terms a means to which a service or information can be written on a spreadsheet/ledger and the best part is that its immutability unlike Google sheets where in google has all the powers to change or alter anything should it wish to do so.
In this case blockchains such as EOS tokens and so on should not be considered a security nor a liability in this specific case.
excellent article.. this is a perspective I will not forget..
I feel the same about this post and a lot of Dan's writing and overall work.
@dan's post interest me. I respect you too alot @teamsteem
indeed, I am looking forward to 2018 and what will happen.. contact me on steem.chat to discuss some things about projects if you want.
@dan this is an excellent article, ur perspective is cool too.
yes . . . viewpoint is worth 80 IQ there is a saying
this is a very clear and clever way to explain to people who don't understand yet that tokens are not securities . . . that tokens are not securities
calling tokens securities . . . is calling a shared database service a security, which is absurd, exactly
i liked @dan's article from january as well about proof of stake and proof of work compared
they are secretly selling all the data and over that says we respect your privacy
Google will build its own block-chain software. It won't need EOS. You can bypass EOS and build you're own blockchain / dapp like dan did with steemit. Blockchain is just an open data base, not a big deal really.
Why would Google pay to hose their own blockchain, when EOS is free. If anything, they will likely copy the open source EOS software after launch. This makes EOS a really big deal.
EOS is free? Where did you get that idea? Block.one charges you for the tokens.
Dear @dan Im Connor from UUNIO(reward driven social media marketplace) steemit+netflix version(https://uun.io) and we are desperate for your help, is there anyway I can contact you? my point view of a content is that a content should be rewarded as long as it exists just like expensive paintings. and Im trying to feed all the contents creators who post their masterpiece at facebook and youtube for free. we've designed to burn our reward tokens with intrinsic value like emojis and software goods. I wish we could have some of your advices..
You should be posting again here on Steem, instead of just dropping links, really :D
wouldn't that be considered aggrandizement in Steem etiquette?
Again this term, I forgot what it means... aggrandizement?
aggrandizement
[uh-gran-diz-muh nt]
noun
1.an act or instance of aggrandizing, or increasing in size, or intensity:
aggrandizement of mercantile trade in the early colonies.
2.the act of making something appear greater than is actually warranted by the facts:
Some saw it as ego aggrandizement.
3.expansion of power, wealth, rank, or honor:
The department was used for the aggrandizement of its leaders.
Basically it's Dan making Ned feel small even after he left the platform. Ned doesn't like it.
Thank you for the explanation, hope this time I will remember it!
He could have used MASDACS.io and cross-posted on both his platform and Medium at the same time. Hi Dan. Nice to meet you. Thanks for Steemit. :)
Never heard of it, and I don't tend to trust projects that I haven't seen before so easily so this is what I think he will do, especially if you think that he has a lot of wealth distributed to his account, and all of this while copy-paste is not that hard. And there is another reason why he wouldn't try to post the same content in multiple places and that is because @cheetah will come after him with @steemcleaners.
MASDACS.io is a Steemit based project put on by Whaleshares and @officialfuzzy. I'm only just learning about it more myself. For all I know, the site may have been down doing updates. It's still in the works I believe, adding more platforms and such. I was joking more than anything. I also heard that @cheetah has been updated to not flag cross-publishing (RSS feed???) from certain platforms. Like the SteemPress plugin for example.
Oh, that's great then, he could be using it, I don't know if he knows about it, but as you say, we just keep learning :)
That will encourage dumping of articles from those platforms here in steemit.
Another point of view is that it will allow flagging across all platforms in support. An abuser will be reprimanded on more than just Steemit. Kind of closes a spammer's options.
Didn't bother reading.
I'm going to say that the fact that you're just dropping links here makes we want to power down and leave...
Jesus FUCK Christ @dan... can't you support your OWN FUCKING PRODUCT!
DICK!
He will ignore these comments, you know? :))
Just like he ignores his past projects...
Yes, I am aware.
Well, I hope he won't try to create another Steem, because that would be competition, even more than Steem already has. If you think about it, it seems that there is going to be an eosfinex as competition for BitShares.
Competition for the social media blockchains might not be such a bad thing. Right now development is taking forever here on Steemit, so a little competition might end up leading to a better products for those of us who use it.
Surprised he just drops a link but it is clear that Steem can't fulfill what is needed to go to the next stage.
Sorry dude, not his product anymore.
Sorry dude... it always WILL BE.
Sorry dude... Not part of Steem Inc. anymore, not his product anymore.
Just a user as all of us (just a LOT bigger)
I accept your apology. See ya.
Got eem.
While Steemit Inc. owns the website Steemit, the Steem blockchain by itself is open source, and owned by all who have a stake in it (Steem Power in this case). It's not like Steemit Inc. owns the blockchain.
While Steemit Inc. owns the website Steemit, the Steem blockchain by itself is open source, and owned by all who have a stake in it (Steem Power in this case). It's not like Steemit Inc. owns the blockchain.
I like the analogy and I perfectly agree, there can't be a crime in technology
or medium itself, if some people choose to use it in any illegal way then this is completely different problem. There's still a lot of confusion around tokens and the general knowledge is still pretty poor, but it's improving and we're getting there!
In general, I agree with you that the issuers of the tokens are responsible for complying with the securities laws. There is a four part test under the Howey case decided by the U.S. Supreme Court that determines whether something is a security.
The test requires the following:
It shouldn't be difficult for the issuers of tokens to structure the tokens to avoid the application of the securities laws.
For the most part I agree with you that the service providers will not get into trouble under the securities laws, but where they may have some exposure is if they accept tokens in consideration for their services and those tokens are deemed to be securities. In that case, the service providers might need to register as broker-dealers under the securities laws to avoid liability, because if the providers are acquiring securities that they are then able to sell for their own account, they could be deemed to be broker-dealers. One way to avoid that would be for the providers to simply require payment in cash rather than accepting tokens as consideration for their services.
I'm sure block.one will review that issue carefully with its attorneys to avoid problems.
Would block producers be exposed by using tokens like an incubated fund?
Almost accurate but it must be solely on effort of a party who must be contractually liable to provide value to token holders.
Am glad to see your post here on steemit @dan, In my own opinion I really don't see what business Google has with money exchange..
They should fixate on their company and how to improve it.
The post wasn't really about Google or their plans either. Was more of using what we already know about Google to express his own perspective and insight into blockchain technology as an service provider.
Hearing so many things about google hate for crypto lately. Don't know if by 2025 Google would have moved the backend of Google Sheets to a blockchain. It will be a nice move if it happens.
2025 would actually be too long for everyone to wait for Google to do this. The platform is already in place, the tools ready and the idea just got shared, am sure if Google won't do it, someone will be working on it this year. If that's launch maybe with the EOS.IO software, then Google will have a tough competitor.
Yes there were speculations of google planning to ban crypto which are not yet clear.