/biz/ - Business & Finance

[Anonymous No.25290749]

What should I do if I believe LINK is almost certainly a security, but also that this doesn't really matter?

https://www.sec.gov/news/speech/speech-hinman-061418

This talk makes it really abundantly clear that LINK is a security.
>But its a utility token
Not good enough. The utility thing only applies if the vast majority of holders use it as such. Clearly the majority of LINK holders don't actually use and only bought it because they expect to profit by selling it, with any increase in value in the intervening time being brought about by the effort of the chainlink team
> But they are registered in the Caymens!
so were EOS and they still got in trouble with the SEC
>But the whitepaper says they aren't securities!
As per the SEC, whatever label is applied to the security doesn't matter, what matters is the nature of the transaction and what buyers hope to accomplish from it
LINK is also not registered with the SEC.
>but NYSDFS
Ripple were also cleared by the NYSDFS and it didn't save them
>But Link is decentralized!
No, while the oracles themselves are decentralized the manner in which the tokens are distributed is anything but, read how XRP was considered by the SEC and see the parallels
https://static.coindesk.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/716bee37-e45e-41d2-a4e1-2d966015a277.pdf
>But US investors weren't allowed!
A check box on the ICO is unlikely to be considered 'due deterrence' by the SEC

On the other hand, EOS raised 4 billion and were hit with only 26 million in fines. BTOC raised 25 million and were only fined 250k. And arbitrum is likely to kickstart a mad FOMO when it is released next year. Despite this the market will almost certainly shit itself if the SEC announce they are targeting LINK

What to do anons?

[Anonymous No.25290869]

yawn

[Anonymous No.25290891]

Those are some heavy bags you've got there.

[Anonymous No.25290999]

When is arbitrum even coming? I thought it was supposed to be q4, alongside tsigs

[Anonymous No.25291021]

>>25290749
>if the SEC announce they are targeting LINK

they wont announce beforehand unless sergey is a retard like brad garlinghouse and decides to fight a lengthy (potentially multiyear) legal battle instead of taking up the option to settle swiftly and privately.

[Anonymous No.25291033]

>>25290869
I'm not a fudder, I'm genuine holder, I've had 10k LINK for almost 2 years at this point and never doubted once until a few days ago. I have enough in crypto that making it is a real possibility in the coming year, but not if the SEC wreck my shit in the intervening time

[Anonymous No.25291044]

Why would the World Economic Forum bother with an illegal security. They released a white paper with Chainlink for gods sake. This isn’t Chainlink buying influence, this is actual interest and use case right in front of you.

[Anonymous No.25291063]

>>25290999
They lied

[Anonymous No.25291094]

Sergey is going to get nuked so hard by the SEC

[Anonymous No.25291114]

>>25290749
Smart linkies are hedging with api3

[Anonymous No.25291139]

>>25291044
the WEF couldn't give a fuck if LINK is a security, they don't give a shit if the price craters 90% as long as LINK's technology is still intact afterwards. Could you actually address the concrete problems facing LINK instead of waxing on about some moonshine from a body that isn't related to its status as a security.

[Anonymous No.25291141]

getting weak hands from all the pajeet fud?

[Anonymous No.25291215]

>>25291139
Nobody knows if it will be declared a security or not, retard. Just sell if you can't take the risks.

[Anonymous No.25291234]

>>25291139
you mong, the price is equally important to the success of the network in so many different ways

[Anonymous No.25291291]

DID YOU EVEN READ THE 71 PAGE DEMAND FOR RIPPLE?

XRP is NOT technically a security. XRP is being demanded by THE WAY THEY SOLD IT to the market, misleading investors and not complying with the SEC. Link didnt do any of this illlegal shit that Ripple , as a company.. I repeat, AS A COMPANY AND NOT THE XRP CRYPTOCURRENCY did.

If the demand would apply to Link, they would be EVERYONE, including ETH, which they already mentioned its not a security.

[Anonymous No.25291337]

>>25291234
do you not understand that if it becomes illegal for americans to hold and trade the price is fucked, its that simple

[Anonymous No.25291344]

on the off chance you're not a pathetic fudder: https://twitter.com/MariaPesce_/status/1343942192860176385

[Anonymous No.25291474]

>>25291291
The manner in which XRP was sold to the market has the same problems as with LINK, namely a huge amount was withheld by the founders with no transparency as to how it will be spent and to what the proceeds of its sale will finance, this is literally the exact thing the SEC regulates. a throw away line about "using funds to develop the network" isn't good enough, they need to furnish costbreak downs, budgets, reports, none of which link has been forthcoming with.

[Anonymous No.25291509]

>>25291344
>https://twitter.com/MariaPesce_/status/1343942192860176385
I'm not a fudder, the tweet says it is unavailable, screenshot please?

[Anonymous No.25291620]

>>25291474

LMAO dude do you even understand what a Future is? All the things you mentioned are regulated for securities, BUT LINK IS NOT A FCCKING SECURITY. THEY ONLY WATCH THOSE IF THEY TRIED TO SELL IT AS THAT REASON. Link owning the whole Link doesnt mean shit if they never mislead the investors that the price would appreciate.

[Anonymous No.25291670]

>>25291033
is this pasta? I will make this pasta

[Anonymous No.25291679]

>>25291509

And Gemini was right about not listing XRP

[Anonymous No.25291710]

>>25291337
what are you talking about? im saying the WEF would very much care if the price were to "tank" since that impacts the actual utility of the network. the higher the price, the higher the future cost would be to compromise such a network.
regardless, link isnt a security, as per Gemini's brand ambassador saying that all assets have to go under extensive review before getting listed. they chose not to list ripple because they didn't meet the criteria. however, the listed chainlink. so eat a dick nufag
https://twitter.com/MariaPesce_/status/1343942192860176385?s=20

[Anonymous No.25291765]

Can someone spoonfed me on what arbitrum does and if its important

[Anonymous No.25291843]

>>25291474
>namely a huge amount was withheld by the founders with no transparency as to how it will be spent and to what the proceeds of its sale will finance
The Link team was very upfront about token distribution at ico.

[Anonymous No.25291864]

>>25291620
you are so stupid it hurts, fuck me. Read the fucking link I put in the OP.
>>25291679
As I said NYSDFS cleared xrp too, but they still got fucked
https://www.financemagnates.com/cryptocurrency/regulation/nydfs-creates-crypto-greenlist-includes-paxos-issued-tokens/

[Anonymous No.25291868]

>>25291765
it dumb person terms: arbitrum basically makes ethereum cheaper to use as a second layer solution by a factor of 100-1000x. it does not have its own token, it uses chainlink instead. the rest you can go dig up yourself kiddo

[Anonymous No.25291920]

>>25291864
fucking idiot. read your link. they didn't approve it for listing

[Anonymous No.25292011]

>>25291920
>>25291864
https://www.dfs.ny.gov/apps_and_licensing/virtual_currency_businesses/approved_entities_number

[Anonymous No.25292056]

>>25292011
>>25291920
>>25291864
https://www.dfs.ny.gov/apps_and_licensing/virtual_currency_businesses/virtual_currencies
this is another table, but you can clearly see in one ripple is only approved for custody but not listing (updated nov 2), while chainlink in the first link i sent was approved for both listing and custody

[Anonymous No.25292070]

>>25291864
You are an idiot.
Read again your source. XRP was not in the complete cleared list. It was just “pre-approved” unlike Eth for example which are ready to be listed.

Also, XRP never passed any Howey Test, unlike chainlink.

Again, you are retarded.

[Anonymous No.25292118]

What should I do if I believe DOT is almost certainly a security, but also that this doesn't really matter?

https://www.sec.gov/news/speech/speech-hinman-061418

This talk makes it really abundantly clear that DOT is a security.

[Anonymous No.25292407]

>>25290749
All of what you just wrote can be replaced by the fact that you should sell. Link isn’t for everyone your scared we get it. You just come across a bit delicate though

[Anonymous No.25292484]

>>25290749
The biggest reason for the SEC going for ripple is because DEV constantly talked about price. CHAINLINK IS LITERALLY VALUELESS AND SPECULATIVE. It is us that is driving the price up Sergey has never commented on price and will never comment on price. It is listed on gemini which is an exchange created by the Winklevoss twins from America who are extremely intelligent when it comes to this stuff. They never listed XRP....

[Anonymous No.25292492]

gladly buy ur bags if i had the money OP. Do us a favor and sell it all to the market. Its better for you.

[Anonymous No.25292510]

>>25290749
>Ripple were also cleared by the NYSDFS and it didn't save them
Ripple? Sure, XRP nope

[Anonymous No.25292571]

>>25291139
Economic badwidth. The marketcap of the LINK token will be relevant to the network once cryptoeconomical incentives like penalty & deposit contracts come into place

[Anonymous No.25292584]

there is much more COPE in this thread than I anticipated. No one will read the links I posted and no one is discussing the meat of the matter.

1. Link tokens are not decentralised.
2. A huge number of them are held by the team, much more so than was the case for XRP
3. There is insufficient transparency in the manner in which the tokens are disposed of, this is what the SEC prosecutes for
4. Currently the primary means by which link generates income is through the sale of these tokens
5. The vast majority of holders are hoping to get rich through price appreciation brought about by third party efforts. Whether or not this was a selling point of the token is not of concern to the SEC, as long as a clear majority of holders believe they will profit by doing nothing.

I'm out, dumped half my tokens now and will take the other 5.5k out of cold storage tomorrow and sell them off tomorrow. I might buy back into link in the future when the dust settles.

[Anonymous No.25292705]

>>25292584
thanks OP for the sell however we do not waste our time on pajeet fud

[Anonymous No.25292784]

>>25292584
>Link tokens are not decentralised.
Token distribution doesn't make a project more prone to be investigated by the SEC, however the way in which such token is created could.
>A huge number of them are held by the team, much more so than was the case for XRP
XRP supply is literally infinite, since it can be minted to Ripple's pleasure, while LINK only has 1 billion tokens.
>There is insufficient transparency in the manner in which the tokens are disposed of, this is what the SEC prosecutes for
The transparency doesn't have to be directed towards retail buyers of their product, but to authorities requesting clarifying information
>Currently the primary means by which link generates income is through the sale of these tokens
There are different teams that have declared publically that they are paying Chainlink in order to be able to access to their data. Chainlink currently does generate revenue through subscriptions to their DeFi Price Feeds, which is a service paid in fiat.
>The vast majority of holders are hoping to get rich through price appreciation brought about by third party efforts. Whether or not this was a selling point of the token is not of concern to the SEC, as long as a clear majority of holders believe they will profit by doing nothing.
Everything is a security except stableco... Oh wait, stablecoins are going to be declared securities too.

tl;dr: OP is a faggot

[Anonymous No.25292801]

>I might buy back into link in the future when the dust settles.
From a trading perspective you're better off holding or buying more. Unless you think that the SEC is likely to open a case against LINK while they've got their case against XRP going and not just use the conclusion of the XRP case against LINK then you're selling into fear and buying back somewhere higher than it is now. The conclusion of the case will matter, but along the way markets are able to ignore a whole lot. I'm planning on buying more when it dips below the 200DMA and hits the longer term shallow trendline from before the spike to 20.

[Anonymous No.25292904]

What are some of the factors to consider in assessing whether a digital asset is offered as an investment contract and is thus a security? Primarily, consider whether a third party – be it a person, entity or coordinated group of actors – drives the expectation of a return. That question will always depend on the particular facts and circumstances, and this list is illustrative, not exhaustive:

Is there a person or group that has sponsored or promoted the creation and sale of the digital asset, the efforts of whom play a significant role in the development and maintenance of the asset and its potential increase in value?
Has this person or group retained a stake or other interest in the digital asset such that it would be motivated to expend efforts to cause an increase in value in the digital asset? Would purchasers reasonably believe such efforts will be undertaken and may result in a return on their investment in the digital asset?
Has the promoter raised an amount of funds in excess of what may be needed to establish a functional network, and, if so, has it indicated how those funds may be used to support the value of the tokens or to increase the value of the enterprise? Does the promoter continue to expend funds from proceeds or operations to enhance the functionality and/or value of the system within which the tokens operate?
Are purchasers “investing,” that is seeking a return? In that regard, is the instrument marketed and sold to the general public instead of to potential users of the network for a price that reasonably correlates with the market value of the good or service in the network?

[Anonymous No.25292924]

>>25292484
They also personally invest in chainlink and not xrp

[Anonymous No.25292931]

Does application of the Securities Act protections make sense? Is there a person or entity others are relying on that plays a key role in the profit-making of the enterprise such that disclosure of their activities and plans would be important to investors? Do informational asymmetries exist between the promoters and potential purchasers/investors in the digital asset?
Do persons or entities other than the promoter exercise governance rights or meaningful influence?

While these factors are important in analyzing the role of any third party, there are contractual or technical ways to structure digital assets so they function more like a consumer item and less like a security. Again, we would look to the economic substance of the transaction, but promoters and their counsels should consider these, and other, possible features. This list is not intended to be exhaustive and by no means do I believe each and every one of these factors needs to be present to establish a case that a token is not being offered as a security. This list is meant to prompt thinking by promoters and their counsel, and start the dialogue with the staff – it is not meant to be a list of all necessary factors in a legal analysis.

Is token creation commensurate with meeting the needs of users or, rather, with feeding speculation?
Are independent actors setting the price or is the promoter supporting the secondary market for the asset or otherwise influencing trading?

[Anonymous No.25293000]

Is it clear that the primary motivation for purchasing the digital asset is for personal use or consumption, as compared to investment? Have purchasers made representations as to their consumptive, as opposed to their investment, intent? Are the tokens available in increments that correlate with a consumptive versus investment intent?
Are the tokens distributed in ways to meet users’ needs? For example, can the tokens be held or transferred only in amounts that correspond to a purchaser’s expected use? Are there built-in incentives that compel using the tokens promptly on the network, such as having the tokens degrade in value over time, or can the tokens be held for extended periods for investment?
Is the asset marketed and distributed to potential users or the general public?
Are the assets dispersed across a diverse user base or concentrated in the hands of a few that can exert influence over the application?
Is the application fully functioning or in early stages of development?

[Anonymous No.25293101]

>>25292801
selling now is simply a hedge, I don't mind losing out on some % of my LINK tokens if I'm wrong, and I'll eat the loss, but I care very much about my LINK being rendered worthless if I'm right. In either case Link has been in pretty poor shape for months now and it shows no sign of reversing, I'm likely to gain in sats in the short term which should offset any FOMO caused by LINK being given a pass or xrp beating the case.

[Anonymous No.25293415]

>>25293101
LINK is a security, it would eventually be worthless regardless, and trying to have a serious discussion about LINK on /biz/ is like banging your head against a wall, any discussion is labelled fud and any post which isn't an outlandish price predictions is ignored.

LINK is unironically a coin for qtards on twitter now. You should ave taken profits earlier but now is better than later.

[Anonymous No.25293512]

>>25290749
why are you xrp bagholders so desperate to instill the same doom you retards have to deal with into others? you're in it alone.

[Anonymous No.25293556]

>>25291139

>the price of LINK is a security feature

Nice try tho

[Anonymous No.25294027]

>>25292584
>>25293101
Are you retard?
Like real mongoloid or something?
Also yes security fud haves "some" merits but you are most concearned on short term price effect

It literally means you are overinvested and you should hedge, keep spot link position and buy option or keep keep spot link position and do small lvrg short, or sell half and manage you fucking risk you usless cunt, but you have no Idea about it because you literally keep linkies on fucking chink bucket shop lol

[Anonymous No.25294283]

>>25291509
I'm not a fudder, I'm genuine holder, I've had 10k LINK for almost 2 years at this point and never doubted once until a few days ago. I have enough in crypto that making it is a real possibility in the coming year, but not if the SEC wreck my shit in the intervening time.

[Anonymous No.25294357]

>>25290749
>Not good enough. The utility thing only applies if the vast majority of holders use it as such. Clearly the majority of LINK holders don't actually use and only bought it because they expect to profit by selling it, with any increase in value in the intervening time being brought about by the effort of the chainlink team
it doesn't matter what the users think or did. securities are based on what the sellers say and do, for obvious reasons

[Anonymous No.25294593]

>>25290749
>The utility thing only applies if the vast majority of holders use it as such.

Says who? Is gold a security then?

[Anonymous No.25294705]

I'm not a fudder, I'm genuine holder, I've had 10k LINK for almost 2 years at this point and never doubted once until a few days ago. I have enough in crypto that making it is a real possibility in the coming year, but not if the SEC wreck my shit in the intervening time.

[Anonymous No.25295199]

>>25290749
Fuck me. Sergey is a genius. Your link brought me to the opposite conclusion.

> The purchaser usually has no choice but to rely on the efforts of the promoter to build the network and make the enterprise a success. At that stage, the purchase of a token looks a lot like a bet on the success of the enterprise and not the purchase of something used to exchange for goods or services on the network.

Fake.

>only talks about use-cases

>Incentivize the community to decentralize the creation of the network

Truth. Checkmate. Thanks Jonny and cie

[Anonymous No.25295213]

>>25290999
real soon check your social media!

[Anonymous No.25295307]

I'm not a fudder, I'm genuine holder, I've had 10k LINK for almost 2 years at this point and never doubted once until a few days ago. I have enough in crypto that making it is a real possibility in the coming year, but not if the SEC wreck my shit in the intervening time.

[Anonymous No.25296091]

>>25291021
>cntrl+f swift
>cntrl+f link
confirmed fudders btfo