"The United States of America:
The U.S. citizens and residents could participate in ICOs, but there are novel regulation rules for that.
Participation of U.S. citizens and residents in eHealth First's ICO is not prohibited by the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") or U.S. law. However, despite the recent investigation of The DAO and SEC Report No. 81207 ("SEC Report"), establishing the status of an Initial Coin Offering ("ICO") as "securities" subject to regulation under U.S. law, ICO investors are uncertain, especially with respect to ICO's offered by foreign companies, such as eHealth First.
Basing on the review of the U.S. current legislation, the eHealth First Project Team considers, that the EHF Token isn't a security.
Nevertheless, eHealth First makes no promise of compliance with SEC regulations with regards to this ICO. Although eHealth First fully believes in the innovation and success of this project, it advises all potential investors that ICO investments carry certain risks and uncertainties. U.S. citizens and residents seeking to invest in this ICO are urged to independently assess all emerging risks. We provide the Guide for U.S. investors to help foster understanding of the current legal status of ICOs in the U.S., specifically ICOs offered by foreign companies, but we are not providing legal advice on this subject."
Saw this on the website. Are you suggesting US citizens can legally participate in the ICO should they understand that it is not an IPO equivalent of cryptocurrency?
Basically, yes. If the token is not a security token, technically, the above mentioned rules does not apply, but since many countries still don't have clear rules about cryptocurrency in general and ICOs in particular, investing in ICOs still represents a risk, especially in America.
It is risk alright, whether in US or elsewhere in the world. What I thought was bold of eHealth First is to say you can participate when many ICOs wouldn't. It's a Swiss company registered in EU, would this jeopardise any future operations in the US because it doesn't meet the regulatory diktats on ICOs?
Have they done the test to determine if the token is security or utility, i thought there is a company who want to do it but i forgot the name.
I think that there should be a list of qualities that a token should possess in order to be qualified as a security token. Like paying dividends, for example. I don't think that eHealth token qualifies. It was said somewhere that it's a utility token, no?
The good use case will make good price even if it's not dividend token. There will be demands in token
ICOs like KICK ICO/KICK coin will be be a dividend if going by the regulatory norms but even ICOs like Loomia and Utrust have made it a point to not allow US citizens from participating. Was wondering if this will have any legal implications considering how distrustful law enforcement people are against cryptos.
on a side note:
kickico stopped having a dividend airdrop, since it ruined the price of the tokens totally. they burned all dividend tokens and now the price is rising again.
Every investment is prone to changes in our own roadmaps in the future, worrying about legal implications is completely out of the question for me, as regulations come to pass, the Community can not be affected by sudden changes, regulations can not be abusive and harmful to those who already act in crypto
