|
|
|
|
|
by sillysaurus3
3191 days ago
|
|
But it's not in their reply. That's not at all what they said: 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. |
|
I'd say that's them saying they believe they are impervious so long as they are nice.
He's not my opponent, I feel sorry for him, not that he's my enemy. I feel that's a very accurate representation of what he said.
And no, really, not my opponent. I don't have a nickel invested in any cryptocurrency or ICO. I don't mind if you do, but it's going to suck if you lose your money - or, worse, end up going to jail.