It would take a bit of work but really just to make a simple order book I don’t think would be huge. Just make sure 90% of deposits are cold stored in case hackers think our throw together market is an easy target. At the very least the dev team could auction off the large blocks they are selling and basically do a P2P market.
Even if the volume was low right now this would be a safe “moon base” in case polo decides to delist. Of course we would have the same issue if the government started considering MAID a security and found our little market they might move to shut it down. I guess we would technically need to do KYC to. Ok so there are some other hurdles besides just building it. Still I think it would be a small enough market they would just be like ya nice garage sale, not worth our effort to send lawyers after you. Basically if we could just have it READY to launch as a backup if polo fell though I would feel alot more secure. So maybe build the exchange side and then cross the bridge of the legal side if we need to actually draw our weapon.
A small but real benefit would be the dev team could take a trade fee and use it to fund development. I mean I love trading, but have to admit I am like damn polo over the course of time you have skimmed alot and don’t really invest in the projects you are skimming from. In fact I would accept up to maybe a 0.5% trade fee if I knew that was all going back into creating value for the coin I am paying fees to trade.
It was discussed.
Im not saying im against it.
It would take time and money and detract from the ongoing work on the core project.
And IF something terrible did happen . Hack , exploit found it could put the company in a far worse position.
Oh interesting, got a link to that thread? Didn’t mean to make a new issue out of something that was already thoroughly explored recently. Although maybe things have changed now that we lost our moon base of cryptopia. I mean even a week ago I would say ah don’t worry we will have that as backup, but now it is apparent they are never coming back.
Well it would be an investment, but over time I think they could recover that in trade fees and turn a profit, so its actually increasing available man hours to work on the actual project at hand. Right now they have like a pool of money they are spending from every day, and nothing is actually coming in the other side to fill the pond back up. This would be a kind of sustainable income that could help push though the last stretch if that pool is gonna run out before then.
If they do what every other exchange does the user agreement basically says: We will try to not get hacked, but if we do and lose everything we don’t owe you shit. Plus if we are smart about it and keep most funds in cold storage the potential damage can be very low (only cost is it might take time for large withdrawals to pass human inspection and release the funds from cold storage)
Sorry, no link at hand.
And i wouldnt say it was discussed extensively.
Iirc im referring to a comment made by nick lambert ( dont hold me to that ).
Search his recent posts under his profile if you wish.
It was i believe in another thread on the topic of exchanges / erc transition , possibly a dex thread.
It was fairly recently though. Like this yr for sure.
Maintain an exchange is a lot of work. The probability MAID will be delisted from Poloniex is high. Polo will not keep a coin which have low trading volume because they can’t make money on it. That’s why we can see so many projects delisted even if they have good fundamentals and teams working on it.
I think the ERC20 transition seems to be a better alternative. We will still be able to trade/swap the token on DEX.
Also if the project get more traction, people will start to buy/sell it. Then we don’t have to worry because Poloniex will be able to make money on this trades and probably won’t delist MAID.
Poloniex has actually expressed support for MAID. Also they dealt with potential securities coins differently to Bittrex and did it by working with the SEC and filing the required paperwork.
Then add to it that MAID does not meet the SECs definition of a security
We have two reasons why Poloniex is not considering that.
That MAID is not a security - is that a SEC opinion, your’s applying SEC criteria, your’s applying other criteria, or a guess? Could you point me to what supports this?
Go read what SEC calls a Security, MAID does not fit it.
Primary indicator is that there is no promise of financial gains or any financial anything, unlike almost every other coin out there.
MAID is only a token to be exchanged for SAFEcoin which in itself is just for purchasing goods. Rather like a movie ticket promises you a seat in the theatre and no monetary/financial anything . A good indicator that MAID is safe is that BTC also is not a security.
There was a video put out by a ex-SEC auditor that went through the process and points that the SEC go through in determining what is a security. Also the SEC has said that most coins do not fall under securities and the evidence is the coins on Bittrex since Bittrex remove any coin they considered too low in volume or had a risk of being a security in their limited view which was formed prior to the later clarifications by the SEC.
Also MAID is not a USA coin and the SEC has no jurisdiction over it.
Disclaimer, IANAL and the SEC has been know to ignore all their rules and declare things contrary to everything.
I my opinion correct. But we must always be aware that rulings can change and be ready to change if that happens. Actually moving to ERC-20 could change the situation since it shows an intent to be a tradeable asset and potentially not be a “token” and could show a silent indicator that a promise of financial gain may have been given. A long shot but who knows.
I know that the Lykke exchange doesn’t support OMNI coins, but as an exchange, could they be worth looking at as a future option? If MAID was to take the ERC20 route they could be well worth considering as they support lots of coins now. Simple to use, mobile-based and much more transparent with their work, plans and updates. Also European based for jurisdiction terms. Just a thought!
I think there are arguments against this. It is traded though exchanges and in that way gets to a more liquid market in a similar manner to securities. Maybe its true if you just buy it and HODL until you eventually traded it for safecoin it did not behave like a security to you. From what I gather the US considers basically anything you can trade like that a security unless its something you can consume right away and yield the value like farmers produce. Now maybe when it CAN be traded for safecoin we might have a stronger argument it is just a commodity but right now it’s a risk that maybe the project will fail and it will never be tradeable for anything. In that way it could be considered a financial instrument to represent accepting this risk for hopefully larger rewards then you put in if it all works out. I mean in the end if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck it is a duck. There are certainly more people then just me I am sure that trade it in a way the intent looks very much like having a financial instrument.
That is really a worthless line of argument since BTC is not considered a security and the SEC has had plenty of reasons to do so.
MAID has the purpose of being a token to be exchanged for a token that can buy resources. There is nothing financial in its purpose and how you buy that non-finical token does not add to the case it is a financial instrument
Don’t get caught up in that anything bought/sold through a market must be a security. A security is a particular beast that has to meat some standards. Otherwise gift cards would be a security
trading loans is for sure a security. I think you could argue this is kinda a loan to the dev team and in exchange they will give you some of the final product if they succeed in “repaying” the loan. BTC isn’t a loan to anyone… its just BTC… and there is no associated risk of some entity defaulting.
Of course if that’s the way we are defining it as a security then actual safecoin would not be one because at that poin there is no more IOU its just a giftcard you can use whenever you want.
There is no promise or intention in MAID to be that.
Also Poloniex did agreements with SEC so any loans could and most likely are done under special agreements with the SEC and so the loans will be independent of “if the coin is a security or not.”
And back to BTC, its has loans too and is not a security.
Your argumentation is not supported by reality. If BTC is not a security then your argumentation cannot be correct.
Now even if BTC became a security then it does not follow that MAID must be. WHY? Because MIAD is only a holding token for safecoin which is only a gift card to buy stuff on the SAFE network.
AND the sec announced that coins specifically for a particular network is not a security unless they additionally meet the standards of a security through other areas for the coin. EG a promised interest earning capacity.
And then MAID is not under the control of the SEC anyhow, so they cannot control MAID.
They can go after exchanges that sell it to US customers. Particularly if that exchange is located in the US like polo.
Well that is some good news I did not hear. Just hope they stick to that and don’t back peddle then we are prolly fine.
I could loan you some sugar then sell the contract to my other neighbor. That doesn’t make sugar a security but the loan agreement would be.
I still think you could say safecoin is a gift card, but MAID (at least until safecoin is released) Is a promise to give me some safecoin if the borrower can do good business and come up with it before they go under.
I thought the contract was 1 MAID will get you 1 Safecoin if and only if the dev team is successful. Now in this case its more of a promise and a handshake. I am worried this is exactly the kind of thing the SEC would target though. They aren’t saying you can’t trade securities… Just to do so you would have to follow certain guidelines (ie a real contract that is possible for a 3rd party to verify exactly what was agreed on rather then he said she said)
You were talking of loan contracts which should be a financial instrument. That is a deceitful way of discussing something. Seriously bad form.
It could be construed to be a contract but is not the kind of contract that forms a financial instrument. It is simply a pre-purchase of a coin.
Go and read up on what constitutes a financial instrument. And I think your questions will be answered rather than trying to win a point here with changing context in an poor attempt to win a point that is not there to win.
