|
|
|
|
|
by KGIII
3191 days ago
|
|
Their comment about how they won't get complaints and will be ignored by the SEC says they do believe they are invincible with regards to the SEC. They, themselves said it. That's not my mischaracterization, that's was in their reply. The SEC isn't going to care that people were happy with their sex purchases. No, they aren't even going to care a little bit. If he follows through on this, he's almost certainly going to prison. It's not sane. That's not rational thinking that causes harm to the individual. I may not know their diagnosis, but I can tell you that's not sane. |
|
It's our view that the SEC part won't be what pushes us over the edge. 100% what we're doing is not legal, it's in our business plan. SEC won't care if investors are OK, yes. But if investors are OK, they won't be filing complaints and there will be less pressure to go after us. Not a defense! Just a delaying factor. Prosecution isn't free. Far easier to shut down ICOs that aren't operating as proper anonymous extrajurisdictional companies. They can go after us, but it's a terrible ROI for them.
It's important to represent your opponent accurately. He's saying his biggest threat is law enforcement, not the SEC. And that makes sense: once he starts making headlines, which government entity will be the most motivated to catch him? The SEC, or the FBI?
At no point did he insinuate that he could avoid SEC scrutiny by being nice.