bitcoin bitcoin bitcoin bitcoin bitcoin bitcoin bitcoin bitcoin bitcoin bitcoin bitcoin bitcoin bitcoin bitcoin bitcoin bitcoin bitcoin bitcoin
finance finance finance finance finance finance finance finance finance
finance finance finance finance finance finance finance finance finance
business business business business business business business business business business business business business business business business IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT
Ripple Labs Faces Third Securities Fraud Lawsuit
Managing partner of Robbins Arroyo LLP, Brian J. Robbins, filed a class action lawsuit against Ripple Labs Inc, XRPII LLC, and CEO Bradley Glaringhouse on behalf of San Diego college senior David Oconer. Signed by fax late June of this year in the San Mateo, California Superior Court, its more than two dozen pages set about making the case Ripple is in clear violation of the Howey Test.
Mr. Oconer, through his legal team, stresses how Ripple fought to manipulate the XRP price, including placing tens of millions XRP tokens into a kind of escrow, creating an arbitrary scarcity. It was also a way to signal to worried longer term investors the company would not dump the lot all at once. Indeed, XRP mooned to many hundreds of percent, the suit alleges, as a result of such moves.
Ripple, CEO Face Another Securities Fraud Lawsuit
It’s the third such lawsuit filed against the company since early May of this year. A common theme between each suit is the claim XRP is a security as defined under US regulatory statute – which insist Ripple Labs is the token’s puppet master indistinguishable from XRP itself. The Oconer version leans heavy on making a case for a Howey Test violation. Ripple isn’t taking any of the suits lightly, hiring two former US Securities and Exchange Commission heavies, Andrew Ceresney and Mary Jo White, as lead counsel.
Ripple, CEO Face Another Securities Fraud Lawsuit
XRP has long been held in a controversial light due in part to its origin story. While leading cryptos were to be mined on chain, ripples appeared ex nihilo with more than 60 percent still held by its parent company. If deemed a security, the company would be most likely ordered to cease all trading, and it’s not unusual to presume holders would be given the chance at refunds. Violations of securities law, what’s more, can also be prosecuted criminally, though those in the know believe it will not get to that stage.
Will these lawsuits hurt Ripple? Let us know in the comments section below.
Monday 30 July 2018
Unaware Where Bitcoins Are Mined, RBZ Governor Embraces Blockchain
CB Governor Wants to Know Where Bitcoins Come From
RBZ, the central bank of troubled Zimbabwe, has initiated studies to investigate the blockchain technology and its possible applications. The major financial institution of the inflation-ridden African country considers blockchain a “new developing global innovation” and is willing to embrace it, according to its governor, John Mangudya.
On Wednesday, Mr. Mangudya told guests attending the Alpha Media Holdings Banks and Banking breakfast meeting in Harare that RBZ is moving in that direction, just like many other central banks around the world. “In fact, it is true that for the rest of the world, if you go to countries like United States, China, United Kingdom, and South Africa, it [blockchain] is the issue that is being discussed by the central banks, including the likes of the International Monetary Fund,” he explained.
Unaware Where Bitcoins Are Mined, RBZ Governor Embraces Blockchain
John Mangudya
Like many of his colleagues, John Mangudya made it clear that he is not referring to the digital money underpinned by the blockchain technology. “I did not say cryptocurrencies because it is lower than blockchain. Blockchain encompasses all the cryptocurrencies such as bitcoin and we are saying we are putting in motion studies, ways and means of investigating that blockchain technology,” he elaborated, noting the need for a cautious approach but also stressing that RBZ should not be “left out” on these developments.
bitcoin bitcoin bitcoin bitcoin bitcoin bitcoin bitcoin bitcoin bitcoin bitcoin bitcoin bitcoin bitcoin bitcoin bitcoin bitcoin bitcoin bitcoin
finance finance finance finance finance finance finance finance finance
finance finance finance finance finance finance finance finance finance
business business business business business business business business business business business business business business business business IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT
“What we are against as I have always said is to do things which are not regulated because we need to know where these bitcoins are being mined and do want to hunt them. So while we want to embrace things, we need to know where they are coming from. If you embrace mobile banking platforms we know that there is a trust account,” the governor said, quoted by News Day. Mangudya tried to further reason RBZ’s position on cryptocurrencies, demonstrating deficit of basic knowledge of the matter he seems unwilling to understand: “If you are investing in virtual money, we want to know where it is being mined. In fact, cryptocurrencies are just like mobile money because you need a wallet where you deposit the cryptocurrency, but the issue is what is their source and how do they do it?”
Zimbabwe’s Crypto Troubles
John Mangudya’s comments represent another example of how cryptocurrencies fall victim of arbitrary measures imposed by policy makers and regulators that are not quite qualified. The decisions of the central bank in Harare have had serious implications for Zimbabwe’s nascent crypto sector which was offering a way out of some of the country’s financial woes.
In early May, the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe issued a circular to commercial banks, instructing them to close all accounts of crypto firms within a two-month period and banning crypto trade. With another directive, released on May 17, the central bank ordered the country’s first and leading crypto exchange, Golix, to cease all operations immediately. On the 21st, Golix referred to the High Court requesting the lifting of the ban. The exchange was only granted interim relief, despite previous reports of the ban’s reversal.
Unaware Where Bitcoins Are Mined, RBZ Governor Embraces Blockchain
The lifting of the restrictions on crypto trading by Justice Alphas Chitakunye did not help Golix a lot, as RBZ’s order for banks and financial institutions to quit dealing with crypto companies remained in place. That pushed the company operating the trading platform, Bitfinance, to look around for other markets. In June, reports came out that Golix is entering three other African countries in an attempt to stay afloat in the aftermath of the crypto ban in Zimbabwe.
Do you agree that central bankers and policy makers should try to learn more about cryptocurrencies before banning them? Share your toughs on the subject in the comments section below.
RBZ, the central bank of troubled Zimbabwe, has initiated studies to investigate the blockchain technology and its possible applications. The major financial institution of the inflation-ridden African country considers blockchain a “new developing global innovation” and is willing to embrace it, according to its governor, John Mangudya.
On Wednesday, Mr. Mangudya told guests attending the Alpha Media Holdings Banks and Banking breakfast meeting in Harare that RBZ is moving in that direction, just like many other central banks around the world. “In fact, it is true that for the rest of the world, if you go to countries like United States, China, United Kingdom, and South Africa, it [blockchain] is the issue that is being discussed by the central banks, including the likes of the International Monetary Fund,” he explained.
Unaware Where Bitcoins Are Mined, RBZ Governor Embraces Blockchain
John Mangudya
Like many of his colleagues, John Mangudya made it clear that he is not referring to the digital money underpinned by the blockchain technology. “I did not say cryptocurrencies because it is lower than blockchain. Blockchain encompasses all the cryptocurrencies such as bitcoin and we are saying we are putting in motion studies, ways and means of investigating that blockchain technology,” he elaborated, noting the need for a cautious approach but also stressing that RBZ should not be “left out” on these developments.
bitcoin bitcoin bitcoin bitcoin bitcoin bitcoin bitcoin bitcoin bitcoin bitcoin bitcoin bitcoin bitcoin bitcoin bitcoin bitcoin bitcoin bitcoin
finance finance finance finance finance finance finance finance finance
finance finance finance finance finance finance finance finance finance
business business business business business business business business business business business business business business business business IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT
“What we are against as I have always said is to do things which are not regulated because we need to know where these bitcoins are being mined and do want to hunt them. So while we want to embrace things, we need to know where they are coming from. If you embrace mobile banking platforms we know that there is a trust account,” the governor said, quoted by News Day. Mangudya tried to further reason RBZ’s position on cryptocurrencies, demonstrating deficit of basic knowledge of the matter he seems unwilling to understand: “If you are investing in virtual money, we want to know where it is being mined. In fact, cryptocurrencies are just like mobile money because you need a wallet where you deposit the cryptocurrency, but the issue is what is their source and how do they do it?”
Zimbabwe’s Crypto Troubles
John Mangudya’s comments represent another example of how cryptocurrencies fall victim of arbitrary measures imposed by policy makers and regulators that are not quite qualified. The decisions of the central bank in Harare have had serious implications for Zimbabwe’s nascent crypto sector which was offering a way out of some of the country’s financial woes.
In early May, the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe issued a circular to commercial banks, instructing them to close all accounts of crypto firms within a two-month period and banning crypto trade. With another directive, released on May 17, the central bank ordered the country’s first and leading crypto exchange, Golix, to cease all operations immediately. On the 21st, Golix referred to the High Court requesting the lifting of the ban. The exchange was only granted interim relief, despite previous reports of the ban’s reversal.
Unaware Where Bitcoins Are Mined, RBZ Governor Embraces Blockchain
The lifting of the restrictions on crypto trading by Justice Alphas Chitakunye did not help Golix a lot, as RBZ’s order for banks and financial institutions to quit dealing with crypto companies remained in place. That pushed the company operating the trading platform, Bitfinance, to look around for other markets. In June, reports came out that Golix is entering three other African countries in an attempt to stay afloat in the aftermath of the crypto ban in Zimbabwe.
Do you agree that central bankers and policy makers should try to learn more about cryptocurrencies before banning them? Share your toughs on the subject in the comments section below.
No Insider Trading, Market Manipulation and Misleading Ads – Malta’s New Crypto Law
bitcoin bitcoin bitcoin bitcoin bitcoin bitcoin bitcoin bitcoin bitcoin bitcoin bitcoin bitcoin bitcoin bitcoin bitcoin bitcoin bitcoin bitcoin
finance finance finance finance finance finance finance finance finance
finance finance finance finance finance finance finance finance finance
business business business business business business business business business business business business business business business business IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT
New Definitions
No Insider Trading, Market Manipulation and Misleading Ads- Malta's New Crypto LawThe Maltese legislatures have gone out of their way to ensure they won’t use any terms that might appear to put them in odds with current European sentiment. So they don’t refer to Bitcoin, Cryptocurrency, ICO or anything that might ring familiar to anyone with a negative perception of these. Instead they make up new definitions to govern the “Distributed Ledger Technology” industry.
“DLT asset” means a virtual token; a virtual financial asset; electronic money; or a financial instrument, that is intrinsically dependent on, or utilises, Distributed Ledger Technology. “DLT exchange” means any trading and, or exchange platform or facility, on which any form of DLT asset may be transacted.
A”virtual financial asset” or “VFA” means any form of digital medium recordation that is used as a digital medium of exchange, unit of account, or store of value and that is not – electronic money; a financial instrument; or a virtual token. An “initial VFA offering” means a method of raising funds whereby an issuer is issuing virtual financial assets and is offering them in exchange for funds. “VFA exchange” means a DLT exchange operating on which only virtual financial assets may be transacted.
The purpose of the new definitions is to create categories for crypto businesses which want to establish themselves in Malta (and willing to pay fees and hire locals to do so). So expect to soon see some exchanges promoting themselves as a “Certified DLT Exchange” or “Registered VFA Platform” or a variation on these terms based on the new Maltese definitions.
Penalties and Liabilities
No Insider Trading, Market Manipulation and Misleading Ads- Malta's New Crypto LawThe Maltese law also touches a number of points of contention within the cryptocurrency community. These include the prohibition of insider trading, market manipulation and misleading whitepapers, practices that exchanges and ICOs have been accused of at times.
“Insider dealing,” recommending or inducing another person to engage in insider dealing, shall constitute an offence when committed intentionally. It is defined as when a person possesses inside information and uses that information by acquiring or disposing of, for its own account or for the account of a third party, directly or indirectly, virtual financial assets to which that information relates.
“Market manipulation,” shall constitute an offence in severe cases or when committed intentionally. It is defined as the manipulation or attempted manipulation of a virtual financial asset or a benchmark through the employment of an abusive strategy that may be carried out by any available means of trading or other means.
Regarding civil liability for misstatements in an ICO whitepaper, advertisements and website, the law states that: The issuer shall be liable for damages sustained by a person as a direct consequence of such person having bought virtual financial assets, either as part of an initial VFA offering by such issuer or on a DLT exchange, on the basis of information deemed to be untrue…misleading or otherwise inaccurate or inconsistent, either wilfully or in consequence of gross negligence. And it is also considered an offence.
And the law also seems to have serious deterrent against infractions beyond just administrative penalties or losing a license. A person guilty of an offence shall be liable on conviction to a fine of up to fifteen million euro (€15,000,000) or up to three times the profits made or losses avoided by virtue of the offence, whichever is the greater, or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six years, or both such fine and imprisonment.
finance finance finance finance finance finance finance finance finance
finance finance finance finance finance finance finance finance finance
business business business business business business business business business business business business business business business business IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT
New Definitions
No Insider Trading, Market Manipulation and Misleading Ads- Malta's New Crypto LawThe Maltese legislatures have gone out of their way to ensure they won’t use any terms that might appear to put them in odds with current European sentiment. So they don’t refer to Bitcoin, Cryptocurrency, ICO or anything that might ring familiar to anyone with a negative perception of these. Instead they make up new definitions to govern the “Distributed Ledger Technology” industry.
“DLT asset” means a virtual token; a virtual financial asset; electronic money; or a financial instrument, that is intrinsically dependent on, or utilises, Distributed Ledger Technology. “DLT exchange” means any trading and, or exchange platform or facility, on which any form of DLT asset may be transacted.
A”virtual financial asset” or “VFA” means any form of digital medium recordation that is used as a digital medium of exchange, unit of account, or store of value and that is not – electronic money; a financial instrument; or a virtual token. An “initial VFA offering” means a method of raising funds whereby an issuer is issuing virtual financial assets and is offering them in exchange for funds. “VFA exchange” means a DLT exchange operating on which only virtual financial assets may be transacted.
The purpose of the new definitions is to create categories for crypto businesses which want to establish themselves in Malta (and willing to pay fees and hire locals to do so). So expect to soon see some exchanges promoting themselves as a “Certified DLT Exchange” or “Registered VFA Platform” or a variation on these terms based on the new Maltese definitions.
Penalties and Liabilities
No Insider Trading, Market Manipulation and Misleading Ads- Malta's New Crypto LawThe Maltese law also touches a number of points of contention within the cryptocurrency community. These include the prohibition of insider trading, market manipulation and misleading whitepapers, practices that exchanges and ICOs have been accused of at times.
“Insider dealing,” recommending or inducing another person to engage in insider dealing, shall constitute an offence when committed intentionally. It is defined as when a person possesses inside information and uses that information by acquiring or disposing of, for its own account or for the account of a third party, directly or indirectly, virtual financial assets to which that information relates.
“Market manipulation,” shall constitute an offence in severe cases or when committed intentionally. It is defined as the manipulation or attempted manipulation of a virtual financial asset or a benchmark through the employment of an abusive strategy that may be carried out by any available means of trading or other means.
Regarding civil liability for misstatements in an ICO whitepaper, advertisements and website, the law states that: The issuer shall be liable for damages sustained by a person as a direct consequence of such person having bought virtual financial assets, either as part of an initial VFA offering by such issuer or on a DLT exchange, on the basis of information deemed to be untrue…misleading or otherwise inaccurate or inconsistent, either wilfully or in consequence of gross negligence. And it is also considered an offence.
And the law also seems to have serious deterrent against infractions beyond just administrative penalties or losing a license. A person guilty of an offence shall be liable on conviction to a fine of up to fifteen million euro (€15,000,000) or up to three times the profits made or losses avoided by virtue of the offence, whichever is the greater, or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six years, or both such fine and imprisonment.
Predicting Bitcoin to Go to Zero Will Send Your Reputation to Zero
bitcoin bitcoin bitcoin bitcoin bitcoin bitcoin bitcoin bitcoin bitcoin bitcoin bitcoin bitcoin bitcoin bitcoin bitcoin bitcoin bitcoin bitcoin
finance finance finance finance finance finance finance finance finance
finance finance finance finance finance finance finance finance finance
business business business business business business business business business business business business business business business business IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT
New Definitions
No Insider Trading, Market Manipulation and Misleading Ads- Malta's New Crypto LawThe Maltese legislatures have gone out of their way to ensure they won’t use any terms that might appear to put them in odds with current European sentiment. So they don’t refer to Bitcoin, Cryptocurrency, ICO or anything that might ring familiar to anyone with a negative perception of these. Instead they make up new definitions to govern the “Distributed Ledger Technology” industry.
“DLT asset” means a virtual token; a virtual financial asset; electronic money; or a financial instrument, that is intrinsically dependent on, or utilises, Distributed Ledger Technology. “DLT exchange” means any trading and, or exchange platform or facility, on which any form of DLT asset may be transacted.
A”virtual financial asset” or “VFA” means any form of digital medium recordation that is used as a digital medium of exchange, unit of account, or store of value and that is not – electronic money; a financial instrument; or a virtual token. An “initial VFA offering” means a method of raising funds whereby an issuer is issuing virtual financial assets and is offering them in exchange for funds. “VFA exchange” means a DLT exchange operating on which only virtual financial assets may be transacted.
The purpose of the new definitions is to create categories for crypto businesses which want to establish themselves in Malta (and willing to pay fees and hire locals to do so). So expect to soon see some exchanges promoting themselves as a “Certified DLT Exchange” or “Registered VFA Platform” or a variation on these terms based on the new Maltese definitions.
Penalties and Liabilities
No Insider Trading, Market Manipulation and Misleading Ads- Malta's New Crypto LawThe Maltese law also touches a number of points of contention within the cryptocurrency community. These include the prohibition of insider trading, market manipulation and misleading whitepapers, practices that exchanges and ICOs have been accused of at times.
“Insider dealing,” recommending or inducing another person to engage in insider dealing, shall constitute an offence when committed intentionally. It is defined as when a person possesses inside information and uses that information by acquiring or disposing of, for its own account or for the account of a third party, directly or indirectly, virtual financial assets to which that information relates.
“Market manipulation,” shall constitute an offence in severe cases or when committed intentionally. It is defined as the manipulation or attempted manipulation of a virtual financial asset or a benchmark through the employment of an abusive strategy that may be carried out by any available means of trading or other means.
Regarding civil liability for misstatements in an ICO whitepaper, advertisements and website, the law states that: The issuer shall be liable for damages sustained by a person as a direct consequence of such person having bought virtual financial assets, either as part of an initial VFA offering by such issuer or on a DLT exchange, on the basis of information deemed to be untrue…misleading or otherwise inaccurate or inconsistent, either wilfully or in consequence of gross negligence. And it is also considered an offence.
And the law also seems to have serious deterrent against infractions beyond just administrative penalties or losing a license. A person guilty of an offence shall be liable on conviction to a fine of up to fifteen million euro (€15,000,000) or up to three times the profits made or losses avoided by virtue of the offence, whichever is the greater, or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six years, or both such fine and imprisonment.
finance finance finance finance finance finance finance finance finance
finance finance finance finance finance finance finance finance finance
business business business business business business business business business business business business business business business business IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT
New Definitions
No Insider Trading, Market Manipulation and Misleading Ads- Malta's New Crypto LawThe Maltese legislatures have gone out of their way to ensure they won’t use any terms that might appear to put them in odds with current European sentiment. So they don’t refer to Bitcoin, Cryptocurrency, ICO or anything that might ring familiar to anyone with a negative perception of these. Instead they make up new definitions to govern the “Distributed Ledger Technology” industry.
“DLT asset” means a virtual token; a virtual financial asset; electronic money; or a financial instrument, that is intrinsically dependent on, or utilises, Distributed Ledger Technology. “DLT exchange” means any trading and, or exchange platform or facility, on which any form of DLT asset may be transacted.
A”virtual financial asset” or “VFA” means any form of digital medium recordation that is used as a digital medium of exchange, unit of account, or store of value and that is not – electronic money; a financial instrument; or a virtual token. An “initial VFA offering” means a method of raising funds whereby an issuer is issuing virtual financial assets and is offering them in exchange for funds. “VFA exchange” means a DLT exchange operating on which only virtual financial assets may be transacted.
The purpose of the new definitions is to create categories for crypto businesses which want to establish themselves in Malta (and willing to pay fees and hire locals to do so). So expect to soon see some exchanges promoting themselves as a “Certified DLT Exchange” or “Registered VFA Platform” or a variation on these terms based on the new Maltese definitions.
Penalties and Liabilities
No Insider Trading, Market Manipulation and Misleading Ads- Malta's New Crypto LawThe Maltese law also touches a number of points of contention within the cryptocurrency community. These include the prohibition of insider trading, market manipulation and misleading whitepapers, practices that exchanges and ICOs have been accused of at times.
“Insider dealing,” recommending or inducing another person to engage in insider dealing, shall constitute an offence when committed intentionally. It is defined as when a person possesses inside information and uses that information by acquiring or disposing of, for its own account or for the account of a third party, directly or indirectly, virtual financial assets to which that information relates.
“Market manipulation,” shall constitute an offence in severe cases or when committed intentionally. It is defined as the manipulation or attempted manipulation of a virtual financial asset or a benchmark through the employment of an abusive strategy that may be carried out by any available means of trading or other means.
Regarding civil liability for misstatements in an ICO whitepaper, advertisements and website, the law states that: The issuer shall be liable for damages sustained by a person as a direct consequence of such person having bought virtual financial assets, either as part of an initial VFA offering by such issuer or on a DLT exchange, on the basis of information deemed to be untrue…misleading or otherwise inaccurate or inconsistent, either wilfully or in consequence of gross negligence. And it is also considered an offence.
And the law also seems to have serious deterrent against infractions beyond just administrative penalties or losing a license. A person guilty of an offence shall be liable on conviction to a fine of up to fifteen million euro (€15,000,000) or up to three times the profits made or losses avoided by virtue of the offence, whichever is the greater, or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six years, or both such fine and imprisonment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)