#dlt registration status

[go2market]

undefined

Distributed Ledger Technology (Dlt) Is A Blockchain-based Registration System. This System Keeps Track Of All The Records Of Promotional & Transitional Messages Sent By The Senders Where All The Telemarketers And Entities/Enterprises Have To Be Registered With Operators And All The Customers And Retailers Are Connected To The Operators Through Telemarketers.

https://www.go2market.in

[bitprive]

Get the Bitprive Bitcoin Wallet for Free today. No commission. No registration fees. Send and receive bitcoin in your own private cryptocurrency wallet Track your open trades on bitprive so you know the current status of your most recent transactions as you buy and sell bitcoin Personalize your bitprive Wallet profile so people you transact with know it’s you Safely store your hard-earned bitcoin and check your balance in real-time Share your bitcoin wallet address or QR code with other traders and friends Get updated bitcoin-to-fiat conversion rates at your convenience Receive push notifications about your trades and offers #bitprive #bitcoin #bitcoincash #usdt #eth #visa #mastercard #paypal #giftcard #fps #payme #bigpay #grabpay #wechatpay #alipay #imps #zelle #pipay #wingpay #opay #linepay #cryptocurrency #blockchain #dlt #digitalasset (at New York City, N.Y.) https://www.instagram.com/p/B_AsK9VhtBd/?igshid=6madrg4ee49b

[jacobhinkley]

BPG Ambitiously Set to Attract $15M of Investments via ICO, ASX Seeks for More Details

As it has been recently revealed, the Australian Securities Exchange (ASX) is actively examining Byte Power Group (BPG), which is this very IT company that is listed on the platform and is trying to attract $15 million of investments to launch its cryptocurrency exchange.

On July 19, Byte Power Group received AUSTRAC registration approval and informed the ASX about its intentions to undertake a token generation event for Byte Power X Loyalty Tokens (BPX Tokens). Following this statement, the ASX issued a query letter to BPG requiring the company to provide more detailed information on its planned ICO. Today, the firm has revealed its statement with detailed replies to 17 questions that were asked by the ASX under its Listing Rule 18.7.

According to the published statement, BPG is going to generate 1 billion BPX Tokens, 25% of which will be bought by private investors. The price of one token is US$0.06.  The company has set a goal to raise $15 million which will be allocated for creation of the crypto exchange. Within this platform it will be possible not only to trade BPX Tokens but also to use them to pay transaction fees. The company is going to allocate 75% of its tokens for pre-registered users of its exchange, for pre-opening and marketing campaigns and for some special releases.

Special attention to BPG from the side of the ASX can be explained by the fact that it is the first publicly traded company in the country that is seeking to launch a cryptocurrency exchange via an ICO. That’s why early in August, BPG received the above mentioned letter with questions from the ASX’s compliance team. The main aim of this letter was to justify the legality of the company’s token generation event.

It’s worth mentioning that token sale has been already initiated. Currently, only private investors in Australia and Singapore have an opportunity to purchase BPX Tokens but it is believed that soon the company will start selling tokens to investors in Hong Kong. Nevertheless, still there is no information about the amount of the raised funds and the company’s plans to sell the rest 75% of their tokens to investors as well. In Australia and Singapore, the company has managed to receive confirmation about the status of its tokens that are not viewed as securities there.

As for other news from the ASX, it has become known that it postponed the earliest date for the launch of its new replacement for CHESS system. Let us remind that CHESS (Clearing House Electronic Subregister System) has been in use since the 1990s and now the ASX is going to replace it with the post-trade DLT-based platform. Though earlier, it was announced that this new system would be launched in the fourth quarter of 2020, the newly announced date is March-April 2021.

The post BPG Ambitiously Set to Attract $15M of Investments via ICO, ASX Seeks for More Details appeared first on CoinSpeaker.

BPG Ambitiously Set to Attract $15M of Investments via ICO, ASX Seeks for More Details published first on https://medium.com/@smartoptions

[vipcryptosignalscom-blog]

Decentralized Exchange Compendium 'Index' Lists Over 200 Dex Platforms - Bitcoin News

New Post has been published on https://vipcryptosignals.com/bitcoin-news/decentralized-exchange-compendium-index-lists-over-200-dex-platforms-bitcoin-news/

Decentralized Exchange Compendium 'Index' Lists Over 200 Dex Platforms - Bitcoin News

Since the creation of bitcoin and the hundreds of other cryptocurrencies in existence individuals have been trading their assets for profit or for other coins. A great majority of people use centralized exchanges, even though many of them require strict identification policies or have lost funds due to hackers infiltrating their platforms. Over the past couple of years, there has been a proliferation of decentralized exchanges (Dex) that allow digital currency trading without relying on a third party to hold a user’s funds. Unfortunately, people might not be aware that there have been over 200 Dex platforms launched over the past few years, and a Github repository called ‘Index’ allows people to get a comprehensive overview of each decentralized exchange.

Also Read: Testing Cryptocurrency Atomic Swaps With Barterdex

A List of Decentralized Exchanges of Cryptographic Assets, and Their Protocols

When people think about trading cryptocurrencies they often think about exchanges like Gemini, Coinbase, Bitstamp, and others. These exchanges are deemed centralized because they hold a customer’s funds and the data associated with the person’s account. A decentralized exchange, otherwise known as a ‘Dex,’ the protocol is basically a ‘trustless system’ because it doesn’t hold a user’s funds or require any data. There are a lot of popular Dex platforms that people have been hearing about more recently, and now there’s also a Github repository that gives an in-depth look at all 200+ trading platforms. The repository called ‘Index’ was created by the software developers Hanni Abu, Steven Hatzakis, Manfred Karrer and Elio Osés.

“This is a list of decentralized exchanges of cryptographic assets (cryptocurrencies, tokens, derivatives, futures) and their protocols, without a central entity,” explains the repository.   

The architecture of these and their protocols can be quite different from one another. In some cases, they are built projects entirely open source — In other cases, they are closed in some aspects, but still implemented open or decentralized tools or mechanisms like smart contracts that are publicly verifiable. Other projects have chosen to create their own distributed ledger technology (DTL) in order to build a protocol for exchange.

The Index lists the decentralized exchange name, URL, repo, documents, Dex grade, status, protocol, reference, asset, DLT, ORG.

The Benefits of Dex Platforms Are Great But These Projects Have a Limited User Base and Weak Liquidity  

Dex platforms listed on the Index repository include Airswap, Altcoin Exchange, Atomicdex, Bisq, Bancor, Barterdex, Hodl Hodl, Counterparty Dex, Etherdelta, Localcoinswap, Raiden, QTUM Dex, and many more. The list also tells whether or not the Dex is operational, whether the platform has issues, and other types of characteristics.

Some exchanges are considered “fully” decentralized while others are not operational.

For instance, the Index list features exchanges that offer accountless registration, a decentralized DNS, trustless order matching, and many more methods of decentralization. Out of the 200+ Dex platforms, there are a bunch that are either in their very early beta stages, or some that have been defunct or “dead” for quite some time. There’s still a good handful of “fully” decentralized projects, and Index also details their specific protocol layers and the type of cryptocurrency assets used.

There are 200+ Dex platforms listed on Index but many of them have very little users and lack liquidity.

The advantages of using a Dex are profound and allow people to trade in a trustless fashion. The chances of losing your money due to an exchange hack is slim to none and you don’t have to reveal your identity which makes your transactions far more private. The disadvantage to Dex platforms right now is mostly lack of traders, and liquidity is also slim to none even on the most popular and fully operational exchanges. However, as more lose money to fallen exchanges and theft, people are slowly starting to migrate to Dex platforms that offer decentralized features.

It’s likely centralized exchanges will never go away but a lot of cryptocurrency proponents hope the majority of crypto-trades will take place on these trustless platforms. Lastly, if decentralized exchanges do dominate the way we trade value, then the technology will surely revolutionize our current monetary systems — And it’s a nice day for a revolution. 

What do you think of the Github repository Index that features a great variety of Dex platforms? Let us know what you think about this subject in the comment section below.

Images via Pixabay, ARTS1840, the Index list, and Github.  

Now live, Satoshi Pulse. A comprehensive, real-time listing of the cryptocurrency market. View prices, charts, transaction volumes, and more for the top 500 cryptocurrencies trading today.

The post Decentralized Exchange Compendium ‘Index’ Lists Over 200 Dex Platforms appeared first on Bitcoin News.

Telegram: Vip Crypto Signals

#bitcoin #cryptocurrency #ripple #xrp #tradebot #ethereum #news #tron #litecoin

[coin-river-blog]

Technology

Since the creation of bitcoin and the hundreds of other cryptocurrencies in existence individuals have been trading their assets for profit or for other coins. A great majority of people use centralized exchanges, even though many of them require strict identification policies or have lost funds due to hackers infiltrating their platforms. Over the past couple of years, there has been a proliferation of decentralized exchanges (Dex) that allow digital currency trading without relying on a third party to hold a user’s funds. Unfortunately, people might not be aware that there have been over 200 Dex platforms launched over the past few years, and a Github repository called ‘Index’ allows people to get a comprehensive overview of each decentralized exchange.

Also Read: Testing Cryptocurrency Atomic Swaps With Barterdex

A List of Decentralized Exchanges of Cryptographic Assets, and Their Protocols

When people think about trading cryptocurrencies they often think about exchanges like Gemini, Coinbase, Bitstamp, and others. These exchanges are deemed centralized because they hold a customer’s funds and the data associated with the person’s account. A decentralized exchange, otherwise known as a ‘Dex,’ the protocol is basically a ‘trustless system’ because it doesn’t hold a user’s funds or require any data. There are a lot of popular Dex platforms that people have been hearing about more recently, and now there’s also a Github repository that gives an in-depth look at all 200+ trading platforms. The repository called ‘Index’ was created by the software developers Hanni Abu, Steven Hatzakis, Manfred Karrer and Elio Osés.

“This is a list of decentralized exchanges of cryptographic assets (cryptocurrencies, tokens, derivatives, futures) and their protocols, without a central entity,” explains the repository.   

The architecture of these and their protocols can be quite different from one another. In some cases, they are built projects entirely open source — In other cases, they are closed in some aspects, but still implemented open or decentralized tools or mechanisms like smart contracts that are publicly verifiable. Other projects have chosen to create their own distributed ledger technology (DTL) in order to build a protocol for exchange.

The Index lists the decentralized exchange name, URL, repo, documents, Dex grade, status, protocol, reference, asset, DLT, ORG.

The Benefits of Dex Platforms Are Great But These Projects Have a Limited User Base and Weak Liquidity  

Dex platforms listed on the Index repository include Airswap, Altcoin Exchange, Atomicdex, Bisq, Bancor, Barterdex, Hodl Hodl, Counterparty Dex, Etherdelta, Localcoinswap, Raiden, QTUM Dex, and many more. The list also tells whether or not the Dex is operational, whether the platform has issues, and other types of characteristics.

Some exchanges are considered “fully” decentralized while others are not operational.

For instance, the Index list features exchanges that offer accountless registration, a decentralized DNS, trustless order matching, and many more methods of decentralization. Out of the 200+ Dex platforms, there are a bunch that are either in their very early beta stages, or some that have been defunct or “dead” for quite some time. There’s still a good handful of “fully” decentralized projects, and Index also details their specific protocol layers and the type of cryptocurrency assets used.

There are 200+ Dex platforms listed on Index but many of them have very little users and lack liquidity.

The advantages of using a Dex are profound and allow people to trade in a trustless fashion. The chances of losing your money due to an exchange hack is slim to none and you don’t have to reveal your identity which makes your transactions far more private. The disadvantage to Dex platforms right now is mostly lack of traders, and liquidity is also slim to none even on the most popular and fully operational exchanges. However, as more lose money to fallen exchanges and theft, people are slowly starting to migrate to Dex platforms that offer decentralized features.

It’s likely centralized exchanges will never go away but a lot of cryptocurrency proponents hope the majority of crypto-trades will take place on these trustless platforms. Lastly, if decentralized exchanges do dominate the way we trade value, then the technology will surely revolutionize our current monetary systems — And it’s a nice day for a revolution. 

What do you think of the Github repository Index that features a great variety of Dex platforms? Let us know what you think about this subject in the comment section below.

Images via Pixabay, ARTS1840, the Index list, and Github.  

Now live, Satoshi Pulse. A comprehensive, real-time listing of the cryptocurrency market. View prices, charts, transaction volumes, and more for the top 500 cryptocurrencies trading today.

[attorneylauraanthony]

SEC Issues Report on Initial Coin Offerings (ICO’s)

On July 25, the SEC issued a report on an investigation related to an initial coin offering (ICO) by the DAO and statements by the Divisions of Corporation Finance and Enforcement related to the investigative report (the “Report”). On the same day, the SEC issued an Investor bulletin related to ICO’s. Offers and sales of digital coins, cryptocurrencies or tokens using distributed ledger technology (DLT) or blockchain have become widely known as ICO’s.

The basis of the report is that offers and sales of digital assets, including cryptocurrencies, are subject to the federal (and state) securities laws. From the highest level, the nature of a digital asset must be examined to determine if it meets the definition of a security using established principles. In addition, all offers and sales of securities must either be registered with the SEC or there must be an available exemption from such registration. This statement applies to cryptocurrency securities in the same manner it applies to all other securities. In addition, participants in ICO’s are subject to federal securities laws to the same extent they are in other securities offerings, including broker-dealer registration requirements. Securities exchanges providing for trading must register unless an exemption applies.

Despite the SEC findings, it declined to pursue an enforcement action but rather used the opportunity to inform the public on its views and, in particular, that “the federal securities laws apply to those who offer and sell securities in the United States, regardless whether the issuing entity is a traditional company or a decentralized autonomous organization, regardless whether those securities are purchased using U.S. dollars or virtual currencies, and regardless whether they are distributed in certificated form or through distributed ledger technology.”

In the press release announcing the investigative findings, SEC Chair Jay Clayton stated, “[T]he SEC is studying the effects of distributed ledger and other innovative technologies and encourages market participants to engage with us. We seek to foster innovative and beneficial ways to raise capital, while ensuring – first and foremost – that investors and our markets are protected.”

This is not the first time the SEC has addressed registration and exemption requirements associated with cryptocurrencies. There have been several other cases. For example, in December 2014 the SEC settled charges against BTC Virtual Stock Exchange and LTC Global Virtual Stock Exchange related to violations of both the broker-dealer registration requirements and the securities offer and sale registration requirements.

SEC Report of Investigation on an ICO

On July 25, the SEC issued its report on an investigation into an ICO and related activities by the DAO, an unincorporated entity, Slock.it UG (“Slock.it”), a German corporation, and various principals and participants. As mentioned earlier, although the report provides a platform for which the SEC can educate the marketplace, it did not pursue enforcement actions against the targets of the investigation.

The “DAO” stands for a decentralized autonomous organization, or a virtual network embodied in computer code on a DLT or blockchain. The DAO was created by Slock.it to sell tokens to investors, which proceeds would be used to fund for-profit projects. The token holders would share in the profits and, as such, had an expectation of a return on investment. The DAO tokens were also transferable and available for secondary trading on different web-based platforms. After the ICO, but before projects were funded, the DAO was hacked and approximately one-third of its assets stolen. Fortunately, the DAO was able to come up with a plan that caused the return of ETGH raised from the DAO back to their original Ethereum address and thus return investments to the original investors.

The SEC opened an investigation as to whether the offer and sale of the DAO Tokens invoked federal securities laws, whether the DAO Tokens were securities and whether the platforms for the secondary trading of the Tokens required registration as a securities exchange. The answer to each of these questions, under the facts and circumstances presented, was in the affirmative. Since the DAO had not yet commenced operations, the SEC did not review whether the DAO was acting as an “investment company” under the Investment Company Act of 1940, but noted that had they begun operations, such an analysis would have been appropriate.

The report begins with the conclusion. Whether or not a particular transaction involves the offer and sale of a security depends on an analysis of the facts and circumstances, regardless of terminology or technology used or employed. All persons or entities that use a Decentralized Autonomous Organization (DAO Entity), DLT or other blockchain-based technology as a means to raise capital in the U.S. are subject to the U.S. federal securities laws. All securities offered and sold in the U.S. must be registered or must qualify for an exemption from registration. Moreover, any entities or platforms that allow for the secondary trading of securities must either be registered as a national securities exchange or operate pursuant to a registration exemption. The automation of functions, computer code, smart contracts, and decentralization does not change the obligations under the federal securities laws.

Background and Facts

In a one-month period from April 30, 2016, through May 28, 2016, the DAO offered and sold 1.15 billion DAO Tokens in exchange for 12 million Ether (“ETH”) valued at approximately $150 million USD. ETH is a virtual currency. The Financial Action Task Force defines a “virtual currency” as: a digital representation of value that can be digitally traded and functions as: (1) a medium of exchange; and/or (2) a unit of account; and/or (3) a store of value, but does not have legal tender status (i.e., when tendered to a creditor, is a valid and legal offer of payment) in any jurisdiction. It is not issued or guaranteed by any jurisdiction, and fulfills the above functions only by agreement within the community of users of the virtual currency. Virtual currency is distinguished from fiat currency (a.k.a. “real currency,” “real money,” or “national currency”), which is the coin and paper money of a country that is designated as its legal tender; circulates; and is customarily used and accepted as a medium of exchange in the issuing country. It is distinct from e-money, which is a digital representation of fiat currency used to electronically transfer value denominated in fiat currency. The DAO itself was created by the founders of Slock.it as a type of alternative corporation with all corporate functions and governance automated using blockchain and smart contracts. The DAO was the “first generation” of its kind. Participants sent in ETH in exchange for DAO Tokens. DAO Token holders could vote on projects to be used with the DAO assets (ETH, which could be exchanged for fiat currency and other physical or digital assets) and participate in rewards such as profit distributions and dividends. The entire DAO was intended to be autonomous such that project proposals were in the form of smart contracts and voting administered by computer code. The DAO code was launched on the Ethereum blockchain.

The DAO promoted itself through a website that described its purpose (“[T]o blaze a new path in business for the betterment of its members, existing simultaneously nowhere and everywhere and operating solely with the steadfast iron will of unstoppable code”), how it operated, its source code, and a link to buy the DAO Tokens. The DAO was also promoted through media attention and numerous social media channels.

Anyone was eligible to purchase DAO Tokens as long as they paid in ETH, and there were no limitations on the number of DAO Tokens offered for sale or the number that could be purchased by any purchaser. There were no parameters set on the accreditation or sophistication level of a purchaser. Anyone with ETH and an ETH blockchain address could participate. All ETH from DAO Token sales were aggregated in the DAO’s Ethereum blockchain address.

Only DAO Token holders could submit proposed projects in which the DAO might participate, and each proposal would have to involve a smart contract and comply with the preset DAO Token holders voting code. Projects would be approved by a majority vote of DAO Token holders. Before being submitted for a vote, projects were to be reviewed by human curators.

The DAO Tokens were unrestricted, and there were several platforms that allowed for the immediate secondary trading of the DAO Tokens. The secondary market trading platforms were registered with the Federal Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) as Money Services Businesses. The DAO Tokens were, in fact, actively traded on various platforms.

SEC Regulatory Analysis

Section 5 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (“Securities Act”), requires the registration of all offers and sales of securities unless there is an available exemption. The registration provisions are based on “full and fair disclosure” of all material information for an investor to make an informed investment decision, including detailed information about the issuer’s financial condition, identity and background of management and the price and amount of securities to be offered.

Section 5 of the Securities Act, like many provisions in the securities laws, is written in the inclusive, such that all offers and sales are covered unless an exemption is available pursuant to statute or case law. Section 5 states that “unless a registration statement is in effect as to a security, it is unlawful for any person, directly or indirectly, to engage in the offer or sale of securities in interstate commerce.” A violation of Section 5 does not require intent.

The SEC begins its analysis of the DAO Tokens by reference to the definitions of a security found in both Section 2(a)(1) of the Securities Act and Section 3(a)(10) of the Securities Exchange Act. Both definitions include the term “investment contract,” which has been famously defined by the U.S. Supreme Court as an investment of money in a common enterprise with a reasonable expectation of profits to be derived from the entrepreneurial or managerial efforts of others. For an in-depth discussion on the definition of a security in SEC v. W. J. Howey Co., 328 U.S. 293 (1946) (the “Howey Test.”)

Under the Howey Test, whether an investment instrument is a security requires a substance-over-form analysis. The Howey Test defines an investment contract as follows: “… an investment contract for purposes of the Securities Act means a contract, transaction or scheme whereby a person invests his money in a common enterprise and is led to expect profits solely from the efforts of the promoter or a third party…. Such a definition… permits the fulfillment of the statutory purpose of compelling full and fair disclosure relative to the issuance of the many types of instruments that in our commercial world fall within the ordinary concept of a security…. It embodies a flexible rather than a static principle, one that is capable of adaptation to meet the countless and variable schemes devised by those who seek the use of the money of others on the promise of profits.”

Applying the Howey Test, courts have interpreted a security to include such diverse items as citrus groves, warehouse receipts, chinchillas, minks, diamonds, bullion, pay phones, real estate and equipment, and condominium units, when they were offered or sold under circumstances involving the investment of money and an expectation of a return through the efforts of others.

Applying the Howey Test to the DAO Tokens, the SEC notes that “money” need not include cash, but rather can be anything of value. A contribution of ETH is an investment as considered by the Howey Test. Investors in the DAO were investing in a common enterprise with the expectation of profits, including dividends and increased value. The SEC also found that the profits were to be derived from the efforts of others, including Slock.it, its founders and the DAO curators.

On July 25, the SEC issued a report on an investigation related to an initial coin offering (ICO) by the DAO and statements by the Divisions of Corporation Finance and Enforcement related to the investigative report (the “Report”). On the same day, the SEC issued an Investor bulletin related to ICO’s. Offers and sales of digital coins, cryptocurrencies or tokens using distributed ledger technology (DLT) or blockchain have become widely known as ICO’s.

The basis of the report is that offers and sales of digital assets, including cryptocurrencies, are subject to the federal (and state) securities laws. From the highest level, the nature of a digital asset must be examined to determine if it meets the definition of a security using established principles. In addition, all offers and sales of securities must either be registered with the SEC or there must be an available exemption from such registration. This statement applies to cryptocurrency securities in the same manner it applies to all other securities. In addition, participants in ICO’s are subject to federal securities laws to the same extent they are in other securities offerings, including broker-dealer registration requirements. Securities exchanges providing for trading must register unless an exemption applies.

Despite the SEC findings, it declined to pursue an enforcement action but rather used the opportunity to inform the public on its views and, in particular, that “the federal securities laws apply to those who offer and sell securities in the United States, regardless whether the issuing entity is a traditional company or a decentralized autonomous organization, regardless whether those securities are purchased using U.S. dollars or virtual currencies, and regardless whether they are distributed in certificated form or through distributed ledger technology.”

In the press release announcing the investigative findings, SEC Chair Jay Clayton stated, “[T]he SEC is studying the effects of distributed ledger and other innovative technologies and encourages market participants to engage with us. We seek to foster innovative and beneficial ways to raise capital, while ensuring – first and foremost – that investors and our markets are protected.”

This is not the first time the SEC has addressed registration and exemption requirements associated with cryptocurrencies. There have been several other cases. For example, in December 2014 the SEC settled charges against BTC Virtual Stock Exchange and LTC Global Virtual Stock Exchange related to violations of both the broker-dealer registration requirements and the securities offer and sale registration requirements.

SEC Report of Investigation on an ICO

On July 25, the SEC issued its report on an investigation into an ICO and related activities by the DAO, an unincorporated entity, Slock.it UG (“Slock.it”), a German corporation, and various principals and participants. As mentioned earlier, although the report provides a platform for which the SEC can educate the marketplace, it did not pursue enforcement actions against the targets of the investigation.

The “DAO” stands for a decentralized autonomous organization, or a virtual network embodied in computer code on a DLT or blockchain. The DAO was created by Slock.it to sell tokens to investors, which proceeds would be used to fund for-profit projects. The token holders would share in the profits and, as such, had an expectation of a return on investment. The DAO tokens were also transferable and available for secondary trading on different web-based platforms. After the ICO, but before projects were funded, the DAO was hacked and approximately one-third of its assets stolen. Fortunately, the DAO was able to come up with a plan that caused the return of ETGH raised from the DAO back to their original Ethereum address and thus return investments to the original investors.

The SEC opened an investigation as to whether the offer and sale of the DAO Tokens invoked federal securities laws, whether the DAO Tokens were securities and whether the platforms for the secondary trading of the Tokens required registration as a securities exchange. The answer to each of these questions, under the facts and circumstances presented, was in the affirmative. Since the DAO had not yet commenced operations, the SEC did not review whether the DAO was acting as an “investment company” under the Investment Company Act of 1940, but noted that had they begun operations, such an analysis would have been appropriate.

The report begins with the conclusion. Whether or not a particular transaction involves the offer and sale of a security depends on an analysis of the facts and circumstances, regardless of terminology or technology used or employed. All persons or entities that use a Decentralized Autonomous Organization (DAO Entity), DLT or other blockchain-based technology as a means to raise capital in the U.S. are subject to the U.S. federal securities laws. All securities offered and sold in the U.S. must be registered or must qualify for an exemption from registration. Moreover, any entities or platforms that allow for the secondary trading of securities must either be registered as a national securities exchange or operate pursuant to a registration exemption. The automation of functions, computer code, smart contracts, and decentralization does not change the obligations under the federal securities laws.

Background and Facts

In a one-month period from April 30, 2016, through May 28, 2016, the DAO offered and sold 1.15 billion DAO Tokens in exchange for 12 million Ether (“ETH”) valued at approximately $150 million USD. ETH is a virtual currency. The Financial Action Task Force defines a “virtual currency” as: a digital representation of value that can be digitally traded and functions as: (1) a medium of exchange; and/or (2) a unit of account; and/or (3) a store of value, but does not have legal tender status (i.e., when tendered to a creditor, is a valid and legal offer of payment) in any jurisdiction. It is not issued or guaranteed by any jurisdiction, and fulfills the above functions only by agreement within the community of users of the virtual currency. Virtual currency is distinguished from fiat currency (a.k.a. “real currency,” “real money,” or “national currency”), which is the coin and paper money of a country that is designated as its legal tender; circulates; and is customarily used and accepted as a medium of exchange in the issuing country. It is distinct from e-money, which is a digital representation of fiat currency used to electronically transfer value denominated in fiat currency. The DAO itself was created by the founders of Slock.it as a type of alternative corporation with all corporate functions and governance automated using blockchain and smart contracts. The DAO was the “first generation” of its kind. Participants sent in ETH in exchange for DAO Tokens. DAO Token holders could vote on projects to be used with the DAO assets (ETH, which could be exchanged for fiat currency and other physical or digital assets) and participate in rewards such as profit distributions and dividends. The entire DAO was intended to be autonomous such that project proposals were in the form of smart contracts and voting administered by computer code. The DAO code was launched on the Ethereum blockchain.

The DAO promoted itself through a website that described its purpose (“[T]o blaze a new path in business for the betterment of its members, existing simultaneously nowhere and everywhere and operating solely with the steadfast iron will of unstoppable code”), how it operated, its source code, and a link to buy the DAO Tokens. The DAO was also promoted through media attention and numerous social media channels.

Anyone was eligible to purchase DAO Tokens as long as they paid in ETH, and there were no limitations on the number of DAO Tokens offered for sale or the number that could be purchased by any purchaser. There were no parameters set on the accreditation or sophistication level of a purchaser. Anyone with ETH and an ETH blockchain address could participate. All ETH from DAO Token sales were aggregated in the DAO’s Ethereum blockchain address.

Only DAO Token holders could submit proposed projects in which the DAO might participate, and each proposal would have to involve a smart contract and comply with the preset DAO Token holders voting code. Projects would be approved by a majority vote of DAO Token holders. Before being submitted for a vote, projects were to be reviewed by human curators.

The DAO Tokens were unrestricted, and there were several platforms that allowed for the immediate secondary trading of the DAO Tokens. The secondary market trading platforms were registered with the Federal Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) as Money Services Businesses. The DAO Tokens were, in fact, actively traded on various platforms.

SEC Regulatory Analysis

Section 5 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (“Securities Act”), requires the registration of all offers and sales of securities unless there is an available exemption. The registration provisions are based on “full and fair disclosure” of all material information for an investor to make an informed investment decision, including detailed information about the issuer’s financial condition, identity and background of management and the price and amount of securities to be offered.

Section 5 of the Securities Act, like many provisions in the securities laws, is written in the inclusive, such that all offers and sales are covered unless an exemption is available pursuant to statute or case law. Section 5 states that “unless a registration statement is in effect as to a security, it is unlawful for any person, directly or indirectly, to engage in the offer or sale of securities in interstate commerce.” A violation of Section 5 does not require intent.

The SEC begins its analysis of the DAO Tokens by reference to the definitions of a security found in both Section 2(a)(1) of the Securities Act and Section 3(a)(10) of the Securities Exchange Act. Both definitions include the term “investment contract,” which has been famously defined by the U.S. Supreme Court as an investment of money in a common enterprise with a reasonable expectation of profits to be derived from the entrepreneurial or managerial efforts of others. For an in-depth discussion on the definition of a security in SEC v. W. J. Howey Co., 328 U.S. 293 (1946) (the “Howey Test.”)

Under the Howey Test, whether an investment instrument is a security requires a substance-over-form analysis. The Howey Test defines an investment contract as follows: “… an investment contract for purposes of the Securities Act means a contract, transaction or scheme whereby a person invests his money in a common enterprise and is led to expect profits solely from the efforts of the promoter or a third party…. Such a definition… permits the fulfillment of the statutory purpose of compelling full and fair disclosure relative to the issuance of the many types of instruments that in our commercial world fall within the ordinary concept of a security…. It embodies a flexible rather than a static principle, one that is capable of adaptation to meet the countless and variable schemes devised by those who seek the use of the money of others on the promise of profits.”

Applying the Howey Test, courts have interpreted a security to include such diverse items as citrus groves, warehouse receipts, chinchillas, minks, diamonds, bullion, pay phones, real estate and equipment, and condominium units, when they were offered or sold under circumstances involving the investment of money and an expectation of a return through the efforts of others.

Applying the Howey Test to the DAO Tokens, the SEC notes that “money” need not include cash, but rather can be anything of value. A contribution of ETH is an investment as considered by the Howey Test. Investors in the DAO were investing in a common enterprise with the expectation of profits, including dividends and increased value. The SEC also found that the profits were to be derived from the efforts of others, including Slock.it, its founders and the DAO curators.

[greggory--lee]

IMF Publishes Report Detailing Regulatory Recommendations for the Cryptocurrency Industries

The International Monetary Fund (IMF) has released a report that focuses on advancements within the fintech industry, specifically looking at the rapidly evolving cross-border payments industry. An emphasis is placed upon discussing distributed ledger technology, which is presented as having the “potential to offer important service improvements and costs savings.” Much of the report seeks to define and classify the cryptocurrency industry, whilst highlighting key concerns and recommendations with regards to regulators and lawmakers.

Also Read: EU to Consider Adopting Anti-Money Laundering Laws That Address Bitcoin Exchanges

The IMF Report Seeks to Provide Detailed Classifications for Distributed Ledger Technology

The IMF has released a report that provides detailed analysis of cryptocurrency technology, and the potential implications that such may have for lawmakers, governments, and financial institutions.

The report stresses that these “new technologies may require jurisdictions to revise rules governing ownership and contractual rights and obligations”. Greater KYC guidelines, regulatory oversight and regulation pertaining to new cryptocurrency development, and a critical discussion pertaining to balancing privacy and transparency considerations are recommended as prospective policy considerations for governments in assessing DLTs – framing such as necessary in order to gain widespread consumer trust in distributed ledger technology (DLT). Greater regulatory oversight was also advocated for the purposes of combating money laundering, tax evasion and terrorist financing.

The IMF report seeks to provide detailed classifications for distributed ledger technology. The report categorizes DLT as being either ‘permissionless’, or ‘permissioned’. ‘Permissionless’ DLTs are likened to Bitcoin, and described as “open schemes” that “could be very disruptive if successfully implemented.” ‘Permissioned’ DLTs on the other hand, are defined as having a “validation process… [that is] controlled by a preselected group of participants (‘consortium’) or managed by one organization (‘fully-private’)”.

The Report’s Classifications May Inform Governments’ Future Cryptocurrency Regulations

The IMF report seeks to demarcate between “intrinsic tokens”, and “asset-based tokens”. “DLT records the transfer of ownership of ‘digital tokens’, which are essentially units in a ledger. They can either have intrinsic value (an ‘intrinsic token’ like Bitcoin), or be digital representations of a physical or digital asset that exists outside the ledger (an ‘asset-based token’, representing an interest in another asset, such as securities).” This semantic differentiation is important as it could be used as the basis to develop separate juridical frameworks for tokens tied to a fully developed and functioning platform/project, and tokens that have been issued by a project that is conducting an ICO – allowing for the demarcation to be used as a basis for regulators to clamp down on the rapidly proliferating ICO industry.

The report also discusses the antagonism the decentralized trustless execution of transactions on blockchain networks increasingly becoming tied to ‘real-world’ transactions. ”The legal status of a digital token, and the legal effect of its transfer are not clear. For example, would the transfer of an asset-backed token (e.g., representing a security) on a ledger transfer legal ownership of the security or would registration outside the ledger (e.g., in a corporate share registry) still be required? Jurisdictions are trying to develop answers to these questions but country practice varies. The resolution of these questions is crucial for the economy to function and will require more thought by policymakers.”

The IMF Report Has a Number of Positive Implications for the Cryptocurrency Industry

The report advocates that “policymak[ers] will need to be nimble, experimental, and cooperative”, and ultimately encourages governments to work together in developing an inclusive regulatory apparatus for distributed ledger technology. The IMF also promotes the adoption of distributed ledger technology on the part of banks and financial institutions and encourages the creation of “regulatory sandboxes” for the purposes of fostering the “innovative and dynamic” DLT industry.

The IMF report has a number of positive implications for the cryptocurrency industry. The encouragement of inclusive regulatory frameworks and promotion of governments seeking to work with the DLT industry shows that major global economic institutions are recognizing the innovative potential of bitcoin, and seeking to harness rather than oppress such. The report also recognized that the distributed ledger technology is producing an incredible array of what are essentially free technological breakthroughs.

Despite signifying a path toward mainstream adoption for cryptocurrencies and digital ledger technology, there are many within the cryptocurrency community that are deeply skeptical of the IMF’s report. Some fear that blockchain and distributed ledger technology will become another tool wielded by the state for centralization and control. The report’s cautious recognition of bitcoin’s “disruptive potential”, and classification of bitcoin as a “permissionless” token may signify a preference toward the development and use of DLT projects that compete with bitcoin’s utility, but can be subject to influence from governments and institutions.

Do you think that the IMF’s report has positive or negative implications for the cryptocurrency economy? Share your thoughts in the comments section below!

Images courtesy of Shutterstock

At News.Bitcoin.com all comments containing links are automatically held up for moderation in the Disqus system. That means an editor has to take a look at the comment to approve it. This is due to the many, repetitive, spam and scam links people post under our articles. We do not censor any comment content based on politics or personal opinions. So, please be patient. Your comment will be published.

Source link

Source: http://bitcoinswiz.com/imf-publishes-report-detailing-regulatory-recommendations-for-the-cryptocurrency-industries/

[evinayak]

Court may ask U 2 disclose #EVERYthing from #watch & #perfume used when wife seeks #moolah !!

If your Wife files a maintenance case on you, you may be forced by the court to disclose everything from the brand of perfume you use, the brand of watch you wear, details of all movable and immovable property you have, details of your income, details of the debit & credit cards that you have etc etc !!! Try telling this to any person trying to get married and he will laugh at you as if you are in idiot. He will call you a loser, he will call you a loner, and talk to you as if you do not have manhood😞😞 !! The Same young man will later realise the truth, but it will be very late by then 😳😳

-----

////// 15.4 This Court is of the view that the format of affidavit of assets, income and expenditure provided in Form 16-A of Appendix E of the Code of Civil Procedure is not comprehensive to discover the complete income, assets and expenditure of the parties in matrimonial litigation and therefore, there is a need to formulate a comprehensive affidavit of assets, income and expenditure. Puneet Kaur v. Inderjit Singh Sawhney, 2011 (183) DLT 403

16. In Puneet Kaur v. Inderjit Singh Sawhney (supra), this Court, while dealing with Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, directed both the parties to file detailed affidavits of their assets, income and expenditure. The relevant portion of the said judgment is held as under:

7. ...both the parties are directed to file their respective affidavits of assets, income and expenditure from the date of the marriage up to this date containing the following particulars:--

7.1 Personal Information (i) Educational qualifications. (ii) Professional qualifications. (iii) Present occupation. (iv) Particulars of past occupation, (v) Members of the family. (a) Dependent. (b) Independent. 7.2 Income (i) Salary, if in service. (ii) Income from business/profession, if self employed. (iii) Particulars of all earnings since marriage. (iv) Income from other sources:-- (a) Rent. (b) Interest on bank deposits and FDRs. (c) Other interest i.e. on loan, deposits, NSC, IVP, KVP, Post Office schemes, PPF etc. (d) Dividends. (e) Income from machinery, plant or furniture let on hire. (f) Gifts and Donations. (g) Profit on sale of movable/immovable assets. (h) Any other income not covered above. 7.3 Assets (i) Immovable properties:-- (a) Building in the name of self and its Fair Market Value (FMV):-- - Residential. - Commercial. - Mortgage. - Given on rent. - Others. (b) Plot/land. (c) Leasehold property. (d) Intangible property e.g. patents, trademark, design, goodwill. (e) Properties in the name of family members/HUF and their FMV. (ii) Movable properties:-- (a) Furniture and fixtures. (b) Plant and Machinery. (c) Livestock. (d) Vehicles i.e. car, scooter along with their brand and registration number. (iii) Investments:-- (a) Bank Accounts - Current or Savings. (b) Demat Accounts. (c) Cash. (d) FDRs, NSC, IVP, KVP, Post Office schemes, PPF etc. (e) Stocks, shares, debentures, bonds, units and mutual funds. (f) LIC policy. (g) Deposits with Government and Non-Government entities. (h) Loan given to friends, relatives and others. (i) Telephone, mobile phone and their numbers. (j) TV, Fridge, Air Conditioner, etc. (k) Other household appliances. (l) Computer, Laptop. (m) Other electronic gadgets including I-pad etc. (n) Gold, silver and diamond Jewellery. (o) Silver Utensils. (p) Capital in partnership firm, sole proprietorship firm. (q) Shares in the Company in which Director. (r) Undivided share in HUF property. (s) Booking of any plot, flat, membership in Co-op. Group Housing Society. (t) Other investments not covered by above items. (iv) Any other assets not covered above. 7.4 Liabilities (i) OD, CC, Term Loan from bank and other institutions. (ii) Personal/business loan (a) Secured. (b) Unsecured. (iii) Home loan. (iv) Income Tax, Wealth Tax and Property Tax. 7.5 Expenditure (i) Rent and maintenance including electricity, water and gas. (ii) Lease rental, if any asset taken on hire. (iii) Installment of any house loan, car loan, personal loan, business loan, etc. (iv) Interest to bank or others. (v) Education of children including tuition fee. (vi) Conveyance including fuel, repair and maintenance of vehicle. Also give the average distance travelled every day. (vii) Premium of LIC, Medi-claim, house and vehicle policy. (viii) Premium of ULIP, Mutual Fund. (ix) Contribution to PPF, EPF, approved superannuation fund. (x) Mobile/landline phone bills. (xi) Club subscription and usage, subscription to news papers, periodicals, magazines, etc. (xii) Internet charges/cable charges. (xiii) Household expenses including kitchen, clothing, etc. (xiv) Salary of servants, gardener, watchmen, etc. (xv) Medical/hospitalization expenses. (xvi) Legal/litigation expenses. (xvii) Expenditure on dependent family members. (xviii) Expenditure on entertainment. (xix) Expenditure on travel including outstation/foreign travel, business as well as personal. (xx) Expenditure on construction/renovation and furnishing of residence/office. (xxi) Any other expenditure not covered above. 7.6 General Information regarding Standard of Living and Lifestyle (i) Status of family members. (ii) Credit/debit cards. (iii) Expenditure on marriage including marriage of family members. (iv) Expenditure on family functions including birthday of the children. (v) Expenditure on festivals. (vi) Expenditure on extra-curricular activities. (vii) Destination of honeymoon. (viii) Frequency of travel including outstation/foreign travel, business as well as personal. (ix) Mode of travel in city/outside city. (x) Mode of outstation/foreign travel including type of class. (xi) Category of hotels used for stay, official as well as personal, including type of rooms. (xii) Category of hospitals opted for medical treatment including type of rooms. (xiii) Name of school(s) where the child or children are studying. (xiv) Brand of vehicle, mobile and wrist watch. (xv) Value of jewellery worn. (xvi) Details of residential accommodation. (xvii) Value of gifts received. (xviii) Value of gifts given at family functions. (xix) Value of donations given. (xx) Particulars of credit card/debit card, its limit and usage. (xxi) Average monthly withdrawal from bank. (xxii) Type of restaurant visited for dining out. (xxiii) Membership of clubs, societies and other associations. (xxiv) Brand of alcohol, if consumed. (xxv) Particulars of all pending as well as decided cases including civil, criminal, labour, income tax, excise, property tax, MACT, etc. with parties name.

8. Both the parties are also directed to file, along with affidavit, copies of the documents relating to their assets, income and expenditure from the date of the marriage up to this date and more particularly the following:--

(i) Relevant documents with respect to income including Salary certificate, Form 16A, Income Tax Returns, certificate from the employer regarding cost to the company, balance sheet, etc. (ii) Audited accounts, if deponent is running business and otherwise, non-audited accounts i.e. balance sheets, profit and loss account and capital account. (iii) Statement of all bank accounts. (iv) Statement of Demat accounts. (v) Passport. (vi) Credit cards. (vii) Club membership cards. (viii) Frequent Flyer cards. (ix) PAN card. (x) Applications seeking job, in case of unemployed person.

9. The affidavit and documents be filed within a period of four weeks with an advance copy to opposite parties who shall file their response within two weeks thereafter.

11. Both the parties are directed to remain present in Court on the next date of hearing along with all original documents relating to their assets, income and expenditure."

17. Format of the affidavit of assets, income and expenditure.

17.1 This Court is of the view that a comprehensive affidavit of assets, income and expenditure should be filed by the both the parties at the very threshold in all matrimonial cases to enable the Courts to determine the maintenance on the basis of true income of the parties.

17.2 The affidavit of assets, income and expenditure by the parties at the very threshold of matrimonial litigation has following advantages:-

(i) The parties will have to disclose their true income, assets and expenditure. (ii) The maintenance order can be passed expeditiously without any delay on the basis of the affidavit. (iii) Substantial judicial time would be saved. (iv) The maintenance would be fixed by the Court on the basis of true income of the parties.

17.3 The learned amici curiae agree to the formulating of the format of the affidavit of income, assets and expenditure to be filed by the parties.

17.4 This Court has formulated the draft of the assets, income and expenditure to be filed by the parties at the very threshold in all matrimonial cases which is attached hereto as Annexure A.

///////

Kusum Sharma vs Mahinder Kumar Sharma on 14 January, 2015

Author: J.R. Midha

WITH

FAO 297/1997, MAT.APP. 47/2005, MAT.APP. 64/2007, MAT.APP. 33/2010, MAT.APP. 35/2010, MAT.APP. 124/2010 MAT.APP. 36/2012 & MAT.APP. 8/2013

[jacobhinkley]

Malta passes 3 bills into law, opens door for DLT and crypto firms

The Parliament of Malta has recently created a regulatory framework for blockchain, according to reports by Malta Today. The framework is comprised of 3 bills that were passed into law yesterday.

The laws in question are the Malta Digital Innovation Authority Act [MDIA], the Innovative Technology Arrangements and Services Act [ITAS] and the Virtual Financial Assets Act [VFAA]. These acts work together to provide a comprehensive framework for the industry.

The MDIA Act allows for the establishment of an authority known as the Malta Digital Innovation Authority Act. It was created to “promote and development [sic] of the innovative technology sector in Malta through the proper recognition and regulation of relevant innovative technology.”

Stephen McCarthy, the ex-CEO of the Housing Authority in Malta, will be the CEO of the MDIA.

The ITAS sets the bar for the registration of service providers and the certification of their arrangements. These arrangements are expected to include software and architectures that are used in delivering DLT, smart contracts and other such solutions.

The VFAA provides a solid framework for Initial Coin Offerings [ICO] and cryptocurrency exchanges, with requirements for the drafting a whitepaper of an ICO. It aims to provide clarity in an industry where it is lacking, especially with respect to tokens’ status as investments, assets or currencies.

Clarity is achieved using a Financial Instruments Test to determine the category of a digital asset. The test determines whether assets are ‘virtual tokens’, or a financial instrument. If they are neither, they will be declared a Virtual Financial Asset under the VFAA.

Virtual tokens are tokens that do not have any value outside of the platform, which means that it cannot be traded or exchanged in a secondary market. These are generally utility tokens.

Status as a financial instrument will be determined using the EU’s Markets in Financial Instruments Directive [MiFID]. If it is qualified as a security, it will be regulated under the MiFID.

In a tweet, Silvio Schembri, the Junior Minister for Financial Services, Digital Economy and Innovation said:

“The three Bills that will regulate DLT [Distributed Ledger Technology] have been approved by Parliament and enacted into law. Malta , the first world jurisdiction to provide legal certainty to this space.”

Malta is known for being a hotspot for blockchain and cryptocurrency industries. Binance, currently the world’s largest cryptocurrency exchange platform is headquartered in Malta. OKEx and Bitpay are also situated in the country.

This offers a solid base for companies to be established in Malta. A strong regulatory framework will offer a stable system that will “result in further economic growth”, said Schembri.

The post Malta passes 3 bills into law, opens door for DLT and crypto firms appeared first on AMBCrypto.

Malta passes 3 bills into law, opens door for DLT and crypto firms published first on https://medium.com/@smartoptions

[jacobhinkley]

Decentralized Exchange Compendium ‘Index’ Lists Over 200 Dex Platforms

Since the creation of bitcoin and the hundreds of other cryptocurrencies in existence individuals have been trading their assets for profit or for other coins. A great majority of people use centralized exchanges, even though many of them require strict identification policies or have lost funds due to hackers infiltrating their platforms. Over the past couple of years, there has been a proliferation of decentralized exchanges (Dex) that allow digital currency trading without relying on a third party to hold a user’s funds. Unfortunately, people might not be aware that there have been over 200 Dex platforms launched over the past few years, and a Github repository called ‘Index’ allows people to get a comprehensive overview of each decentralized exchange.

Also Read: Testing Cryptocurrency Atomic Swaps With Barterdex

A List of Decentralized Exchanges of Cryptographic Assets, and Their Protocols

When people think about trading cryptocurrencies they often think about exchanges like Gemini, Coinbase, Bitstamp, and others. These exchanges are deemed centralized because they hold a customer’s funds and the data associated with the person’s account. A decentralized exchange, otherwise known as a ‘Dex,’ the protocol is basically a ‘trustless system’ because it doesn’t hold a user’s funds or require any data. There are a lot of popular Dex platforms that people have been hearing about more recently, and now there’s also a Github repository that gives an in-depth look at all 200+ trading platforms. The repository called ‘Index’ was created by the software developers Hanni Abu, Steven Hatzakis, Manfred Karrer and Elio Osés.

“This is a list of decentralized exchanges of cryptographic assets (cryptocurrencies, tokens, derivatives, futures) and their protocols, without a central entity,” explains the repository.   

The architecture of these and their protocols can be quite different from one another. In some cases, they are built projects entirely open source — In other cases, they are closed in some aspects, but still implemented open or decentralized tools or mechanisms like smart contracts that are publicly verifiable. Other projects have chosen to create their own distributed ledger technology (DTL) in order to build a protocol for exchange.

The Index lists the decentralized exchange name, URL, repo, documents, Dex grade, status, protocol, reference, asset, DLT, ORG.

The Benefits of Dex Platforms Are Great But These Projects Have a Limited User Base and Weak Liquidity  

Dex platforms listed on the Index repository include Airswap, Altcoin Exchange, Atomicdex, Bisq, Bancor, Barterdex, Hodl Hodl, Counterparty Dex, Etherdelta, Localcoinswap, Raiden, QTUM Dex, and many more. The list also tells whether or not the Dex is operational, whether the platform has issues, and other types of characteristics.

Some exchanges are considered “fully” decentralized while others are not operational.

For instance, the Index list features exchanges that offer accountless registration, a decentralized DNS, trustless order matching, and many more methods of decentralization. Out of the 200+ Dex platforms, there are a bunch that are either in their very early beta stages, or some that have been defunct or “dead” for quite some time. There’s still a good handful of “fully” decentralized projects, and Index also details their specific protocol layers and the type of cryptocurrency assets used.

There are 200+ Dex platforms listed on Index but many of them have very little users and lack liquidity.

The advantages of using a Dex are profound and allow people to trade in a trustless fashion. The chances of losing your money due to an exchange hack is slim to none and you don’t have to reveal your identity which makes your transactions far more private. The disadvantage to Dex platforms right now is mostly lack of traders, and liquidity is also slim to none even on the most popular and fully operational exchanges. However, as more lose money to fallen exchanges and theft, people are slowly starting to migrate to Dex platforms that offer decentralized features.

It’s likely centralized exchanges will never go away but a lot of cryptocurrency proponents hope the majority of crypto-trades will take place on these trustless platforms. Lastly, if decentralized exchanges do dominate the way we trade value, then the technology will surely revolutionize our current monetary systems — And it’s a nice day for a revolution. 

What do you think of the Github repository Index that features a great variety of Dex platforms? Let us know what you think about this subject in the comment section below.

Images via Pixabay, ARTS1840, the Index list, and Github.  

Now live, Satoshi Pulse. A comprehensive, real-time listing of the cryptocurrency market. View prices, charts, transaction volumes, and more for the top 500 cryptocurrencies trading today.

The post Decentralized Exchange Compendium ‘Index’ Lists Over 200 Dex Platforms appeared first on Bitcoin News.

Decentralized Exchange Compendium ‘Index’ Lists Over 200 Dex Platforms published first on https://medium.com/@smartoptions