I hear you and it’s not fair, but poking too hard does run the risk of fighting the man and dragging everyone else in. If you read close what I said it will help.
alt are doing what they can as hard as they can, we cannot ask them to lead a SEC fight for us. The rules are the rules and they are grey and full of holes. To play safe is smart, but not even then are we protected. Pushing the envelope the other way is asking for trouble, and it will come.
I don’t want to eat into your time too much here David and I appreciate your response. I will try to leave this as a closing reply…
I certainly wouldn’t fathom the idea that alt.co lead anything for a battle with the man. They are a regulated company. I get that.
“The rules is the rules.”.
This here. I don’t see any rules as far as accredited investor status being required for the type of thing we are dealing with here. KYC maybe slightly grey and to play it safe and smart with that yes sure. But for accredited investor status, what I am suggesting here is that perhaps someone from alt.co overshot legal requirement thinking. And there could be a variety of reasons of such, which would be worth having a closer second look at. To which if it was confirmed it is unnecessary, it would be quite a significant positive thing for all parties involved including alt.co.
I am not sure if you read my last reply in this thread or not, or perhaps I’m being misunderstood. Either way i’ll attempt to clarify…
Not interested in promoting the idea of taking on the man. I’m interested in encouraging a second visit of the accredit investor status requirement in the consideration that it was a miscalculation.
SPB has already answered this question in this very topic. Its required of his company to do this or else the company will lose its right to operate. Unfortunately we may believe one thing is right or wrong and its another thing to adhere to the financial laws of where the company operates.
I am at the board of bancor and it is the second class action we have to fight in the US, for a DEX !
Here, I have absolutely no appetite to fight regulators in the US with alt.co for a project we are running for free to help the community.
We control one of the signing keys to eMAID distribution and that’s enough risk for my legal department to ask me to apply Swiss laws in a strict way. Sorry about that.
We are also in a very long and costly legal battle against DCG to recover substantial assets locked at Genesis, and there is only so many fights we can lead at the same time.
You have to admit, the SEC has played a brilliant game, by considering crypto a commodity. Or was it a store of value ? Security ? Money ?
Or maybe they unofficially consider it a commodity but let the rules of a security apply. Or not. Maybe just make the rules up as we go because maybe bitcoin is a commodity but an erc-20 token isn’t ?
Any case, you can’t win against the SEC. They can change the rules however they see fit. You can only hope you don’t get in their crosshairs.
So thank you SPB, for having put so much energy into this, and the risk that you take.
I have never converted by original Maidsafe tokens (Omni wallet) to the ERC20 version. Will this be necessary to do before converting to the actual live token when the platform is ready?
Second question, anyone know when the platform will be ready and we can get and trade the ultimate native token?
No, both Omni MAID and eMAID will be converted 1:1 to network token
Trading the live token will only be possible when the network is live.
There was some rumblings about release candidates being considered for working with live tokens and exchanges working with live rokens. BUT BUT that was not official talk.
It seems somehow I’m being misunderstood so i will attempt to clarify as I have previously with David and some others on this thread.
I certainly wouldn’t fathom nor am I interested in attempting to encourage the idea that you and your company heads a battle with the man. Your company is regulated. And needs to stay legally compliant. I get that.
What I am interested in is seeking some insight from you about the “accredited investor status” requirement for Americans and Canadians. Not the KYC requirement, but accredited investor status.
Since this token swap of omnimaid to emaid is not acquiring a new asset, purchasing of any shares, nor liquidating/transferring title of/selling/buying of any asset, and simply just swapping one proxy token to another representing the same exact asset itself, I am not seeing any legal requirements anywhere for you and your company for needing accredited investors status, for this particular kind of event. Some insight here from you would be great and greatly appreciated.
Also, it seems initially at first, the accredited investor status was not required by your company for Canadians and Americans, and was changed at some point to be required. It would be helpful to know the insight on what prompted this change as well.
This is an example of why I think it’s critical to expand the range of exchanges that list eMAID. I believe this?is at least scheduled for closer to launch, but it would be highly unfortunate to see things take a turn for the worse for Uniswap. Then the only option would be Bitmart…
UniSwap the company and UniSwap the protocol of smart contracts are different things. The first can be stopped, the second will exist as long as the Ethereum blockchain exists, and anyone can install and use the front end for the smart contracts on their computer.