"This change won't affect a number of groups such as Pro Networks and Non-Profits."
Assuming this means that most of the small community-driven groups will be unaffected by the change.
Still, this is clearly a communication fail, as well as a cardinal sin for usability:
By charging users to RSVP yes, they are literally putting a tax directly on a key engagement activity for the whole site.
I also agree with the comment that Meetup has done a poor job of improving itself. The "design facelift" they did 2 years ago negatively affected the growth of our group, and they haven't added much value since then.
A better approach would be to take 15% of ticket sales done through the site in a way that could improve engagement and revenue.
Meetup may have a well-deserved PR hailstorm for this.
What happened on 1 August and with the prices immediately after suggests how the conflict over the blocksize has been widely misreported.
Bitcoin was not ripping itself into two in a civil war, but innovating new forms of governance and token distribution for new projects.
We now have a technically proven, and from the looks of it, established new method of token distribution that is arguably far superior to crowd sales and ICOs.
If you don't like the BCH or Bitcoin implementation, there are already hundreds of other cryptocurrytencies, but you can also fork your own from the biggest, original (and arguably most widely distributed).
BCH now has a "market cap" of about $3.7 billion dollars, probably a world record for a startup (open source project) that was literally released to the world a few days ago.
If you own bitcoins before the fork, you should now own equal amounts on both sides of the coin, and (hopefully) soon will be able to buy or sell either token, depending on your preference.
Bitcoin itself has a $52 billion dollar market cap right now post fork not only because it survived the challenge and may soon implement Segwit, but because it will be one of the best chains from which to fork new projects.
There is no need to take sides from this perspective. Just sell the token you don't like and use the gain to buy more that you do like. OTOH, it's perfectly fine to like and hold both just like it was once okay to use more than one web site.
You've selectively skipped over critical parts of my argu
ment. But never mind... ;)
From your perspective, even in-game virtual limited-edition collectors items that might appreciate in value could be considered "securities". As would limited edition digital art work or, let's say, protected hashes of such works.
Or a limited gift voucher to purchase the first edition of a product funded by Kickstarter....
Basically you can try to draw conclusions of what a typical token crowd sale is or isn't at this stage, but -- at least in my view -- you would probably be jumping to a superficial conclusion.
> This isn't about new legislation. The Howey Test dates from 1946.
Which may or may not be suitable for technology developed and used in 2017, let alone 2018, 2019 or further down the road. So you're completely missing the point.
But if your only argument is that government authorities "could" interpret the law in the most aggressive way, few would argue.
Jean-Philippe Vergne will present his research in a presentation with the same title at the 4-year anniversary of the Bitcoin Wednesday Conference in Amsterdam on 5 July.
"...unlike traditional fiat currencies, cryptocurrency is technology — and thus, price depends on innovation potential... improving the underlying software of a cryptocurrency leads to predictable increases in its price."
"The typical ICO very obviously meets all 4 elements, inasmuch as it involves a company raising money via an ICO..."
Do we really know what a "typical ICO" is at this stage? And as fast as the sector is changing, how do we know what will be typical by the time new legislation is
(a) passed and
(b) enforced?
Many (typical?) ICOs are not companies, registered as foundations to support free, open source software with crystal-clear terms of the token distribution:
Which explicitly state that it is not an investment and that it is likely that participants will lose all of their money.
This is just one exceptional example, and many more will follow.
Forward-thinking jurisdictions such as Switzerland which understand and actively support ICOs are quickly developing a strong competitive advantage against the more regressive ones.
One of the world's authorities on the design and implementation of currency systems and author of Money and Sustainability, Professor Lietaer has become one of the leading critics of fiat money systems...
"In the marketplace there is a lot of noise and very little understanding of how the fundamental capabilities of Bitcoin arise out of its proof of work algorithm. We’ll see a lot of consensus suggestions and quite honestly a lot of them are not going to work and a lot of them are bullshit that will make a lot of consultants rich selling bullshit to banks."
It sounds like Amex is trying to file a patent for our service (and many others). What does HN think we should do?
US Patent 20140006297 filed on July 2, 2013 (from link above):
An integrated, end-to-end, automated system that
enables a first social networking user to seamlessly
transfer value to a second social networking user, even if
the second user is not registered with the money transfer
service from which the first user initiates the transfer...
Send Bitcoins to anyone on Twitter, as easy as a Tweet!
PikaPay is a Bitcoin wallet integrated with the Twitter API and is one of the fastest and easiest ways to use Bitcoin. Just like in the Amex patent, with PikaPay the recipient doesn't need to have a PikaPay account to receive bitcoins.
We were the first to start sending bitcoins on Twitter back in 2011. But we're sure that scores of other companies have been doing "value transfer via social networks" even earlier.
Do we have to take the Amex patent application seriously in any way, and is there anything specific we should do?