shulthz
commented
4 years ago I didn't care about this any more, you can delete these.
Open abitmore opened 4 years ago
shulthz
commented
4 years ago I didn't care about this any more, you can delete these.
dls-cipher
commented
4 years ago @shulthz has been spamming every issue and pull request about BSIP 86 with the comments quoted below. I guess it could be a real issue for the community. But AFAIK @shulthz is not a lawyer, nor he has given any reference in his comments to any law. I hope we can get some opinions from real lawyers. Help needed.
@shulthz wrote:
I suggest to pause this BSIP until resolve the legal risk.
This BSIP86 has legal risk, i suggest everyone need to consider it very carefully and seek a legal consultancy.
When BSIP86 charges the market fees from the GATEWAY.assets, the BTS system will have joint liability and must be responsible for these GATEWAY.assets, but these GATEWAY.assets were without supervision and control by the BTS system.
Gateway just likes the DApp of BTS, BTS just provides the service and takes the transaction fee of blockchain，DApp do what is not the business of BTS, but when BTS charges the market fees of GATEWAY.assets, the nature of things will become different.
To @sschiessl-bcp, @dls-cipher and @thontron : since you're either a lawyer or have close relationships to lawyers, would you like to help on this? Thanks.
To @shulthz: it's better to start new issues (like this) for on-topic discussions. Please don't spam other threads with off-topic comments. Thanks.
Institute attorney will write opinion letter on the case. Will update more on ETA on Monday.
Chee®s
abitmore
commented
4 years ago More context:
BombaUcigasa wrote in Telegram group:
The legal issues I see is the whitelisting/blacklisting of a third party in my own private token ... why should they (note: the token owners) pay in good and services (note: but not the core token)? Imagine giving KYC to my token holders, then the committee comes along and wants to claim the token purpose
Dima wrote in Telegram group:
... after this bsip it (note: the BTS token) would be 100% security ... ... this will bring SEC to us and close European market ... ... delistings from known exchanges will hit the reputation of bitshares ...
Dima wrote in Telegram group, in response to the fist message below:
(note: the committee will) dump (note: the collected fees shared) for core token, then burn the bought core, for example
who will execute this order? who will determine the price and profits? if you have human (i.e. a committee member) interaction in this decision, instant you have a subject for the law you are individuals not a code that burning bts from fees back to reserve pool so you are beneficiaries from the point of the law who will be responsible for "dumping" will be against the law
Dima wrote in Telegram group:
in case of bitshares gateways are more as a broker that brings people to the markets where they are trade and pay fees to the blockchain that goes to the reserve pool. From wich, reserve pool goes daily payment to the infrastructure (workers/witness)
bsip86 enforcing double taxation on these brokers and give nothing in return
in case of mall, mall gives customers that come to the mall and pass by your shop, in case of bitshares, gateway brings customers to their market and committee punish you for this by double taxation
@shulthz has been spamming every issue and pull request about BSIP 86 with the comments quoted below. I guess it could be a real issue for the community. But AFAIK @shulthz is not a lawyer, nor he has given any reference in his comments to any law. I hope we can get some opinions from real lawyers. Help needed.
@shulthz wrote:
To @sschiessl-bcp, @dls-cipher and @thontron : since you're either a lawyer or have close relationships to lawyers, would you like to help on this? Thanks.
To @shulthz: it's better to start new issues (like this) for on-topic discussions. Please don't spam other threads with off-topic comments. Thanks.