SOFTWARE NOT A SECURITY

[Anonymous No.55243439]

MORE THAN 3 YEARS OF ACTIVE DIALOGUE BETWEEN BOTH PARTIES
ENJOY HOLDING TO $0 ANYTHING ELSE

[Anonymous No.55243451]

>>55243439
This security-issue really has you all rattled up.

[Anonymous No.55243463]

>>55243439
actually pretty bullish. i duno though never really be all that excited on DOT, is it worth buying?

[Anonymous No.55243497]

keep screaming wont save you
suicide is an option for many of your kind
also the corporations pretending to be foundations like web 3, eth foundation, chainlink labs and others are not getting away, Uncle Sam needs liquidity

[Anonymous No.55243500]

>>55243439
Then icp wouldn’t be considered a security then

[Anonymous No.55243507]

EVERYTHING IS COMING TOGETHER NOW, SIX MONTHS LATER OF THIS KIND OF TWEETS

[Anonymous No.55243519]

[Anonymous No.55243597]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJeaFFpWISs
>In a historic event, Daniel Schoenberger, Chief Legal Officer at Web3 Foundation, was invited to present the Polkadot network and Web3 vision before the United States House of Representatives House Financial Services Subcommittee on Digital Assets, Financial Technology and Inclusion, and the House Agriculture Subcommittee on Commodity Markets, Digital Assets, and Rural Development.

>In both his oral and written testimony, Schoenberger explained in detail the regulatory process Web3 Foundation undertook regarding the classification of DOT, the native currency of the Polkadot network. As he noted, DOT was initially sold as a security in compliance with U.S. federal securities laws. However, it was designed to secure the network, support governance, and obtain parachain slots, not as a speculative investment vehicle. Web3 Foundation engaged with the SEC staff for over three years, striving for compliance while seeking validation that DOT is coordinating software. Schoenberger also discussed the process of launch and decentralization by which control over the Polkadot network was handed over to the community on both a technical and governance level, and suggested that congress establish a procedure for tokens to be reclassified over time.

[Anonymous No.55243615]

the answer is HBAR, not this cuck shit

[Anonymous No.55243642]

>>55243519
dot and avax. that's why avax wasn't cited either

[Anonymous No.55243701]

>>55243642
Emin is part of the CFTC, doesn't mean his token will survive.

[Anonymous No.55243747]

>>55243701
even if all those tokens are considered securities by the supreme court it's a big nothing burger

[Anonymous No.55243768]

>>55243439
now you own stock, we have come u circle in 3 years. Check m8 retards

[Anonymous No.55243993]

If there was an ICO, regardless of your excuses of "software", it's a security.

Polkadot had an ICO, so...no DOT for you burgers, I mean cattle!

[Anonymous No.55244049]

>>55243993
Somebody has to destroy this smug faggot. You just know he is being a bastard on purpose for his and his kikes friends benefits and our losses

[Anonymous No.55244090]

>>55243439
>serverless internet
So this idiot does not know how the internet works

[Anonymous No.55244206]

>>55244090
3 back-ends:
>past: your average db with sql, still mainstream
>present: cloud, gaining adoption
>future: blockchain, still disruptive

[Anonymous No.55244218]

>>55243993
In the United States...

[Anonymous No.55244225]

>>55243463
Also wondering this. I always saw it as like a Pepsi version of ada, which I also don't own.

[Anonymous No.55244264]

>>55244225
except ada isn't coca cola

[Anonymous No.55244462]

>>55244264
Lol I knew someone was going to say that. I don't hold either and plan to get a bag of both.