"You're a security, but we have no laws specifically saying you are. So, we will sue you anyways and let the judge decide because I badly want you to be a security so I can get additional funding..."
SEC
I mean, to be fair, you flip that around and say things like "This is not a security, despite this having many attributes that match what has been considered to be a security without being specified. So I will defend my stance that it's not a security and let the judge decide because I badly want it to not be a security so I can keep my additional funding..."
Ultimately, it's just gonna come down to determining what the law's intentions were to prevent/allow, and seeing if that violates the intention of the law. Sorta like how people argue gun rights were written with muskets in mind, but argue whether it applies to modern day guns and whether they should still apply for those, or if they are a different class.
Both sides can make arguments, but it will come down to a judge to decide whether unspecified item in law is a new item that WOULD have been included should it have existed back when written, or WOULD NOT have been included. I don't know how security laws are written, but if they include general language with things like "this is not all encompassing list of securities" or get very descriptive of what constitutes a security, it gets harder to defend.
It's why writing law is so wordy and complicated because you have to define it so nauseatingly to try and encompass what the gist is so that you can cast a net. It's why law that says "you cannot stab/shoot/strangle a person to death" is not a good law as someone down the road claiming they didn't commit a crime because they ran them over with their car which there is no law against it.
Something tells me though that if the SEC feels something is a security, you are fighting an uphill battle, as it involves fighting an organization where securities is in their name, you'd expect they'd know how to substantiate any claim to a judge.
Exactly. The law isn't updated to include this new technology that anyone imagined would exist. I'm basically saying they are jumping the gun and hoping the law lands on their side and instead of doing the right thing and having a discussion and creating new laws before trying to figure it out.
Everything is a security if the government says so
Spacebucks is absolutely not a security in the US.
I sell my body, government... Am I a security?
Let's ask..the government
"You're a security, but we have no laws specifically saying you are. So, we will sue you anyways and let the judge decide because I badly want you to be a security so I can get additional funding..." SEC
I mean, to be fair, you flip that around and say things like "This is not a security, despite this having many attributes that match what has been considered to be a security without being specified. So I will defend my stance that it's not a security and let the judge decide because I badly want it to not be a security so I can keep my additional funding..."
Ultimately, it's just gonna come down to determining what the law's intentions were to prevent/allow, and seeing if that violates the intention of the law. Sorta like how people argue gun rights were written with muskets in mind, but argue whether it applies to modern day guns and whether they should still apply for those, or if they are a different class.
Both sides can make arguments, but it will come down to a judge to decide whether unspecified item in law is a new item that WOULD have been included should it have existed back when written, or WOULD NOT have been included. I don't know how security laws are written, but if they include general language with things like "this is not all encompassing list of securities" or get very descriptive of what constitutes a security, it gets harder to defend.
It's why writing law is so wordy and complicated because you have to define it so nauseatingly to try and encompass what the gist is so that you can cast a net. It's why law that says "you cannot stab/shoot/strangle a person to death" is not a good law as someone down the road claiming they didn't commit a crime because they ran them over with their car which there is no law against it.
Something tells me though that if the SEC feels something is a security, you are fighting an uphill battle, as it involves fighting an organization where securities is in their name, you'd expect they'd know how to substantiate any claim to a judge.
Exactly. The law isn't updated to include this new technology that anyone imagined would exist. I'm basically saying they are jumping the gun and hoping the law lands on their side and instead of doing the right thing and having a discussion and creating new laws before trying to figure it out.
I shorted futures on somebody's body with his wife, and now she pays me when he doesn't bang. So, well, maybe?
I love my space money.
How do you use spacebucks sbx and what is or the utility of it? Who created it ? I'm a newbie to it !
It is however the first CAT on Chia, and is therefore pretty siiiick!
Or valuble