Gram will pay for everything

What is behind the attack of the American authorities on Durov's cryptocurrency

The last six months, the world community, interested in the unhindered development of crypto-revolutionary technologies, was surprised to observe how the project of the Durovye Ton (Gram) brothers manages to maneuver between the drops of the rain while the poor fellow Zuckerberg is hopelessly choking in the tropical livne pseudo-libertine Structures of the United States and the European Union.

On October 11, 2019, this finally happened: the American securities and exchanges commission filed a lawsuit against two offshore companies Telegram Inc. and Ton Issuer Inc. And urgently achieved an imposition of a judicial ban on the distribution of GRAM tokens among investors who participated in preliminary sale.

This happened exactly four days before the event, which people who invested in the Telegram Open Network project 1 billion 700 million dollars waited for more than a year and a half. Given the official motivation of the SEC-the concern for investors-the demarche looks exquisitely in Izeutically.

In the trial, so many professional financial nuances and libertarian emotions have intertwined that the mainstream media were trumply confused and do not know how to respond to the blow inflicted by SEC.

• Consider it with a treacherous precedent?

• Counter -revolution?

• Personal revenge to the Durov brothers?

• Or - the beginning of the Crusade of World Financial Elites for the entire cryptoeconomics as a whole?

Let's try to figure it out.

Let's start with the precedent, because he was not there. Ton (GRAM) is far from the first crypto project that has been to the rink of American justice and financial activity control authorities. At the beginning of the summer of 2019, in a similar official press release posted on the portal of the securities and exchanges commission, a lawsuit filed at the Kika Interactive Inc., which held the illegal placement of digital tokens for $ 1,000, was reported to the Canadian company.

The main canvas of the SEC accusations against Kik was the same as against Ton (GRAM): "Selling tokens to American investors without prior to recording their offer, as required by the US legislation on securities."

In parallel with Kik, the American authorities fought against Block.one, a company standing behind one of the largest blockchain platforms for the development of decentralized EOS applications.

It cannot also be said that all these blows from the SEC were a surprise to crypto industry. The Securities and Exchange Commission for three years has been conducting targeted work to bring the emission of crypto -monotons to compliance with American financial legislation. So, almost all the claims made against Ton (GRAM) were theoretized by the SEC more than a year ago in a document revealing the official attitude of the authorities to the issues presented in the SAFT (Simple Agreement for Future Tokens, a simplified agreement on futures tokens).

If there is no precedent in the lawsuit filed against the companies responsible for the launch of Ton (GRAM), why was the reaction of the world crypto community so painful? Why did Ton lawyers say that the SEC decision “surprised and disappointed” them? Was there something else expected?

To understand the genuine meaning of events, we will need to make a brief excursion into the history of crypto -emissions.

For the first few years, the release of all new crypto -monetes was committed in complete agreement with the anarchist freest and the spirit of the movement of the cipher -players. A group of developers created a new blockchain and a token serving it, and then offered this token to everyone. Someone of the crypton monetary went completely free as a result of the so-called. Airdrop (Airdrop) advertising and marketing distribution after the blockchain was launched. Someone bought tokens even at the development stage at a price, significantly lower than the project planned after the official launch of the project.

The last option was called ICO (Initial Coin Offering), the primary proposal of coins, and served as the main source of financing for the development of the project. The process took place spontaneously, without any regulation, as well as without any obligations of issuers of tokens to their customers.

The problem of ICO was that the direct preliminary sale of crypto -replete in the ICO process completely fell under the criteria for “security” (security) as described in American legislation.

This criterion is the so -called. The Hawy Test Test was formulated in 1946 as a result of the Supreme Court of the Supreme Court in the WJ Howey Co case and includes four signs:

1. Money is invested with the aim of increasing it, i.e., invested;

2. Money is transferred to the project in which income and losses are proportionally distributed (the so -called Common Enterprise);

3. It is expected that the project will profit (that is, it is not charitable);

4. The source of profit is not an investor, but a third part.

According to all the ICO criteria, Haui test was held and therefore fell under American financial regulation. So that the crypto industry does not have a temptation to finance their ICO not with fiat currencies, but cryptodes, in 2017, the SEC equated the latter with fiat.

Now, probably, one important circumstance must be explained: no one in a crypto industry in a terrible dream wants to quarrel with the American authorities. Not only because American investors traditionally bring from 30 % to 80 % of all investments to all crypto projects, but also because the American authorities are not difficult to block oxygen to any insurgent.

The point is not even that the rest of state jurisdictions in the world prefer to build their policy in accordance with American “partners”, but that Apple and Google are American companies! And Apple and Google have two stores --itunes and Google Store, in which all applications for mobile platforms are sold. And all crypto projects without exception in the literal sense of the word are vital on mobile solutions, therefore, if

At the request of the American court, Apple and Google will remove your applications from the stores, you can safely put an end to your blockchain, on your coin, and at the chances of financing.

In a word, everyone prefer to be friends with the American femid. For this reason, in the fall of 2017, the crypto community created a compromise type of agreement under which it is recommended to issue new coins - the already mentioned simplified agreement on futures tokens (SAFT).

The meaning of SAFT is that the primary proposal of coins is recognized as the emission of security-tokens , that is, tokens with signs of securities, and for this reason they are required to obey American financial legislation. However, after the launch of the blockchain and the start of the functioning of decentralized contracts or some other security-tokens services, they turn into Utility-Tokens , tokens performing a certain operational task, and like any consumption product, they no longer fall under the action of American financial legislation.

In order to comply with the Law, Security-Tokens at the stage of preliminary sales with a discount (the so-called Direct Presale) must undergo a complex, costly and long procedure provided for by the one that all companies that take their securities on the exchange in the IPO process (Initial Public OFFERING, Public proposal of shares), namely: it is necessary to conduct and publish the results of an external audit, print and distribute the avenue with a description of the goals, object objectives, conduct a technical and economic rationale, open accounting, and also incur significant costs for legal design and registration of emissions in the state-ownedics.

Of course, no one in the crypto industry, which was originally created as an alternative to existing order, was going to engage in all these stupid things. Therefore, a trick was invented: the issue of coins organized under the SAFT agreement, although it was officially registered in the United States, was carried out according to one of the special provisions, which made it possible to extremely simplify the procedure.

We are talking about the so -called. exclusion of 506 (c) regding provisions that allows emitting securities without control by the SEC in the event that these securities:

1. They are sold exclusively by an investor with accreditation (Accredited Investors, something similar to the Russian “qualified investor”, only with much more severe requirements) and

2. Limitations are imposed on the resale of securities.

It was in this form that the grandiose pre -sale of the GRAM coins of the Ton project in January and March 2018 was carried out in the amount of $ 1 billion.

Only the most-most-most-most rich planets were invited to the feast, which, as you know, the concern of the SEC about the preservation of their capital is needed like a dog the fifth leg.

The second condition for the exclusion of 506 (c) - about the ban on the resale of coins before launching the blockchain - was also observed, but Ton delayed the inauguration of the project to indecent (almost one and a half years), so in July an unspoken compromise was achieved with the patience of investors, therefore, futures contracts appeared on different crypto -rhinas, presumably subject to exchange for exchange GRAM coins after the official launch of the project.

Incidentally, the price of these summer futures was three times higher than the pre -sale value of GRAM, but then the SEC got out of the scene with their “care” about investors who now do not know when they are allowed to earn their honestly affected 300 percent profits.

SEC, however, is not interested in the income of celestials from among the first Ton (GRAM) investors. SEC is fundamentally not satisfied with the situation with SAFT and KHUCPO to turn secret-tokens into Utility-Tokens! Because at the moment when the official launch of the Ton blockchain occurs, the GRAM crypto -token crypto -token status will end and the functional token status will begin, which, on the one hand, no longer obeyed American jurisdiction, and on the other, will begin to be sold on uncontrolled crypto -rms.

Considering that the largest American Coinbase crypto -rope is the first to launch Gram bidding in its venue in an honorary queue, there is no doubt that the lion's share of purchases will have to be on ordinary American citizens. Which, as you know, are naive and trusting. And this SEC cannot categorically be allowed. At least without cutting off a fat piece of cake for the native government.

About the pie - this is not for the sake of a red word. The word “pie” in this story, or rather, in the whole genre called “the struggle of the American femid and crypto industry”, is key. There is no need to talk about any high principles, because everything is tied exclusively on the vulgar grandmas and exorbitant greed of Uncle Sam, who is experiencing serious physical sufferings from the fact that the tremendous cash flows of cryptoeconomics constantly flow out somewhere, often to the enemies-to Russia and China.

By the way, Uncle Sam is sometimes quite accommodating and moderately greedy. So, Block.one, which raised it to its ICO, you won’t believe it - six billion dollars (!), In September 2019, concluded a settlement with the Sec and was just a microscopic fine: 24 million.

True, Block.one is Brendan Blumer from Aiova and Daniel Larimer from Colorado, his own, native guys. Therefore, something suggests that the brothers with the incorrect surname Durovs for inexpensive from Uncle Sam will not work.

The SEC press release contains many hints that leave no doubt: the main telegraphists of the planet will have to share not childishly.

I quote paragraph 115 of the text of the SEC lawsuit, which seems to be written under the dictation of Russian “partners” from the RKN: “The infrastructure of the Telegram messenger allows anonymous communication and transaction, so, as soon as Grams are distributed publicly, it will become difficult, but rather, it is completely impossible to track those who bought a coin, as well as finding out who is the current investor ".

In general, you have to pay. And pay a lot. Because there are no other options, especially those that run today in a cryptocurrency party: Pasha, de, "I have never bend under any state authorities, and this time will not bend!"

Yeah, of course. It is one thing to portray a fighter for the Libertarian rights to the gentle RKN and the Iranian Guardians of the Revolution, whom the non-killed manager has not seen and is unlikely to ever see.

Another is to refuse Uncle Sam. The latter will quickly make the only headquarters of Telegram Inc. and Ton Issuer Inc. It will turn out to be the spacecraft of Ilona Mask, sent to the conquest of Mars.

Paying or not to pay for Ton (gram) is a matter of life and death. Therefore, all plots come down to the same thing: how much?