Coin conveys money which is both inaccurate for Safe’s token and an undesireable classification IMHO.
1 Like
Or a certificate or bond. Not sure what legal or regulatory ramifications that naming would have. I don’t think they roll off the tongue or fit the lexicon/marketing etc either but maybe useful in describing. Idk.
My point is not that regulatory bodies like the SEC won’t seem Safe’s currency a utility token. Rather, my point is that “token” doesn’t need to be in the name for it to be considered a utility token. [quote=“anon57419684, post:142, topic:32923”]
If the tokens function as a bearer asset it should be referred to as a token,
[/quote]
Why, when the currency regulatory bodies are most willing to accept as a utility token—Ethereum—does not call its self a token in the name?
Maybe we bring back “vaults”. Regardless, a shorter, more concise term is needed that will not conflate the prime network currency with derivative tokens.
Ethereum is the product, it is a token. Safe network is the product, it has a token.
1 Like
Not sure where your confusion is coming from. No one is disputing whether Ethereum is a utility token. The point is about the naming conventions. Ethereum is a utility token that calls its derivative tokens “ERC20 tokens”. The word “token” does not feature in the name “Ethereum”. Ethereum tokens are just “Ethers”. Can you see the difference?
Bittrex US and Global are delisting privacy coins.
I hope the changes are enough to fly under the radar and that old info on the web does not bite us in rear. If their compliance team is researching characteristics online it could spell trouble.
https://bittrexglobal.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/360018560640
2 Likes
I don’t think this affects $MAID because it isn’t a privacy coin. It’s not the same as a Safe Token, even though to us they seem so.
5 Likes
I think this is indicative of a dying system (fiat) really. Crypto needs to really go full-on, buying food, products, services and just skip fiat. Crypto → crypto exchanges are another thing and I sometimes wonder, why not get all crypto back to no exchanges, just earn/give and pay directly for stuff. It’s the big jump that would escape all the nonsense really.
A big jump perhaps, but I wonder if the BTC creator(s) even envisaged exchanges? I suspect not. Of course, folk will go a bit mental at the suggestion, but it’s always good to consider alternatives, so exchanges start to be a problem, ignore them and go another route. It’s a thought anyway
8 Likes
There was long a meme that echoed back to the future - where we’re going, we don’t need roads.
The idea was to hold bitcoin until you could spend it. You didn’t need to exchange it for fiat.
In the rush to get rich quick, this seems to have been lost in the annals of time. Sad really. At some point bitcoin went from being a replacement for fiat to a replacement for gold and some of the dream died with it.
I think if mining/farming remained available to all, folks wouldn’t need to buy and sell it so frequently. I hope safe network tokens can help to reignite this ideal.
8 Likes
I remember the first time I heard that too and I thought it was a really powerful idea. SN will be more cash like than most, especially if DBC is applied. I would bet using that same phrase in casual conversation after launch would be just as powerful and enlightening.
4 Likes
I’m sorry but this is about the biggest bullshit marketing line I have ever heard and most ridiculous and deliberate conflation of definitions of currency ever. A currency is a measure of value. A coin is a form of currency. The safe network is a resource economy and measures those resources via safecoin, or tokens, or whatever unit you want to use, but it’s still at the end of the day a currency! It’s a digital unit of measure that quantifies the resources of the network allocated between users. Moreover does it change the fact users will still have to pay electric bills or hardware costs to provide those resources to the network? A GB still costs x amount of cash in electricity and hardware so there is a conversion rate from SAFE network “tokens” to dollars, or bitcoin, or whatever else. And are there still plans to have DBCs eventually? If you can print out x amount of tokens and give them to your friend in exchange for y product that’s called trade and a currency. Like seriously folks this is an ENTIRE post composed of marketing PR. But it’s nonsense! And I understand that you don’t want to get sued and all but really.
So the goal is to represent the SAFE network itself on exchanges via the token itself via the SAFE Network Token (SNT)? Okay but given most crypto exchanges run everything via various blockchain networks and SAFE doesn’t use a blockchain im not sure how that would work exactly.
So you’re depredicating “vaults” and replacing it with a verb “earn”. This would still imply the action of earning from home, or something similar, is still required for the network to function. We also have a “safe” or a “vault” of some kind, that is a secure space to store our stuff. So sounds to me like you’re just redefining terminology of what “Vault” is actually referring to as opposed to depredicating the term.
From what I’m seeing this is mostly just combining everything into a single easy to use interface. But it doesn’t actually eliminate the need for a node or the need to earn/farm from home. Which is something we still need to establish no matter what we call it. So again I’m getting serious PR stunt vibe from all of this with not much substance.
If anyone’s inappropriately mixing terms it’s state actors on behalf of their fraudulent central banks, attempting to double dip calling bitcoin both property for tax theft as well as currency for AML/KYC privacy intrusion.
10 Likes
100% @anon57419684 HMRC tax as a property. I did an interesting thing, they say foreign-held funds are different. So I told them I had maid in an omni wallet, so foreign held. Their argument was bitcoin does not actually exist so cannot be held abroad
Now what kind of bullshit is that. ofc actual btc does not exist but UXTO’s certainly do. In any case, do these fekeres expect us to believe every £ or $ exists it’s the most crooked of all setups and HMRC are God when it comes to the law here. So yes you are taxed on a property but one that does not exist and when you swap one none existant property for another you need to pay a special tax on an non-income event (this is where they got me) . So treat like currency but tax as a property (even one that does not exist!) is bang on the mark.
11 Likes
Your assertion @JimCollinson is attempting marketing is laughable and your approach is way too brutal and disrespectful.
Look man it’s a new year, we had a horrendous last year don’t start it as “that guy”, just don’t for all our sakes.
15 Likes
This is what I find most corrosive about legislation. It is not based on any principle or logic. It is pure make it up as they go along stuff. Random laws, all decided by edict, under the illusion it was by the choice of the populous (who barely have any steer on the events at all).
Although unpopular these days, common law, progressed by its case law, must have had a genuine consistency to it. No bolt contradictions.
Laws created on whims of Kings, Queens, Lords, or even elected ‘commoners’ as legislation will always lead to a ball of mud, full of inconsistencies. We know the same from software development too. Guiding principles forming a consistent foundation are essential.
6 Likes
Despite the fact that some of this thread does delve into marketing and PR I think there are some very real legal issues here as well. And btw, I think marketing and PR are extremely important and could make or break our network. Getting that right is essential so the more it’s discussed the better.
I wonder now, though, about “earning” anything on the network. If I farm something I don’t need to pay tax on it as it’s mine. Only when I sell it is it taxable. If I earn income, though, the tax man cometh. Now I’m not saying that anyone should seek to avoid tax, and earned SAFE would likely be income, but could a lawyer cause extra trouble for users simply because of a word choice in our marketing material? Maybe I’m being paranoid after my morning coffee, but it seems like politicians and their ability to manipulate the public perception can depend on these seemingly minor things. Maybe could make the difference between the tax liability of paying at the moment earned SAFE is obtained vs. farmed SAFE is sold for money or goods.
6 Likes
Disclaimer: I am not an accountant although I have experience in the field as well as in U.S. Income Tax Return Preparation.
In the U.S., if you receive something of value it is almost always taxed as income whether it was “earned” or not. There are very few exceptions (inheritance, stock appreciation, etc.). Those exceptions are generally taxed when the item of value is sold with the “basis” of the tax calculation being the price of the item at the time you took possession of it. So if you inherited a parcel of land that was valued at $X at the time you were granted possession and sold it later for $Y the profit you would pay tax on would be $Y-$X. Interest income earned on savings or checking accounts and dividends, however, are taxable at the end of the year they accrued whether you sold or used the proceeds or not.
Most likely, SN accumulated by “earners” or “farmers” would ultimately be treated as interest or dividends by U.S. authorities at the end of the year they were accumulated. The best we could hope for, imo though, would be for SN to be treated like stock appreciation where you are only taxed on the profit after selling.
Arriving at the fair market value of your SN, though, would be problematic I suppose. How do you calculate that? The average exchange rate at the time of SN deposit into your “account”? The exchange rate at the end of the year? What if there aren’t any exchanges that list SN? How do you arrive at fair market value to pay your taxes then?
These questions need to be pondered as they will be of immense importance to anyone considering “farming” and to what extent they might want to get involved.
3 Likes
I’m sorry, I’m sure he’s being sincere in giving a well thought out update. But I call them as I see them and I’ve been known as being brutally honest. Would you prefer I lie? You make some very good points about taxation. And while I’m not privy to the particulars of the legal code I tend to agree with you that utilizing non existent digital fiat currency to tax and penalize a “nonexistent” cryptocurrency while quibbling about definitions is also ludicrous. Governments should learn to leave the cryptomarket alone. But they won’t until they are forced out. Look I’m one who calls things as they are. A currency is a currency. It’s a fungible doodad, be it a token, or a small item you carry in your pocket, that is easily tradable and that has high valuable to many people. Safecoin, or the Safe Network Token, whatever you want to call it, fits that description. And renaming it doesn’t change that. SNT may be used by the network to measure network resources but it doesn’t change the fact it will be valuable to the populace and therefore be used as currency, and traded for other currencies. Call a spade a spade.
Look I’m sorry I’m the guy who only posts on here once in awhile. I’m usually the very quiet SAFE network otaku telling all this friends about the network that’ll one day be so amazing and give us all decentralized internet. But no I don’t post on here much or fanboy it up. I’m quiet, I observe, I read the updates every week waiting for launch day, I ask questions and I’m god forbid critical when I see a possible problem.
I was not meaning to be “that guy” but really to be blunt this whole thing seemed like just a vocabulary change to avoid legal harassment by lawyers. Yes there are some conceptual and metaphor changes but really. I called it as I saw it. I’m sorry if I offended anyone.
3 Likes
Yes, this was exactly my thinking. And no word-smithing would likely change that in the US legally. Given the anonymous nature of the network, though, only spend transactions outside the network could be tracked. The earning of SN is not knowable to government. So maybe a truce of sorts where the government accepts that you earned them at zero cost at the time of spend (and then the tax event occurs)? Knowing the spend assumes all online transactions outside the Safe Network are known, but that’s likely to be the case the way things are going (and would certainly be enforced whenever necessary). Wording things to nudge in the desired direction may not be bad persuasion. In my state we have to declare and pay tax on purchases outside the state where sales tax was not collected. Is a voluntary and imo unethical process. Trying to collect tax on earned but unspent SN seems like that. Most will likely ignore it because it is unenforceable.
I don’t think it is likely to be ignored. The feds are a humourless bunch and much more likely to delve into your unpaid income taxes than state auditing bureaus are to your unpaid sales tax. More likely also because we are dealing with one set of laws (federal) instead of a multitude of varying state laws relating to sales tax. More serious penalties as well.