That is correct. However, there is no jurisdiction backing up his claim.
If a company doing an IPO on NXT isn't legally incorporated in a state or country, I'd stay the hell away from that investment.
Yep.
In many common law jurisdictions (perhaps civil law jurisdictions as well) "investors" in a common enterprise not carried on through a separate legal entity may be found to be partners in a general partnership and as such would be fully liable for the debts and liabilities of the partnership.
This, plus the fact that selling unregistered securities to the public is often prohibited, makes all these experiments very dangerous legally.
That seems to imply that
any and all holders of NXT are "partners in a general partnership and as such would be fully liable for the debts and liabilities of the partnership," since we are all "'investors' in a common enterprise"...etc.
Is this a correct interpretation, cryptolawyer?
There is no legislation regarding cryptos directly, so there are no precedence to look to to provide a clear picture of what will happen in such cases. It really depends on how the court decides to few cryptos. But in the case that they view them in such a way, then applicable laws would apply.
The safest way to approach is to assume that if you can be criminally charged, you will be; If you can possibly be held liable, you will be sued. If you have a good attorney, your good intensions MAY be taken into account in court...Maybe.
The bottom line is that both sides of the fence cannot be played. I people want cryptos to be taken seriously, then we can't forget this. If we want cryptos to be seen as legal tender or legit currency, then we have to expect to have to play by the rules. There is no half way. It has to be all in our all out.
The fact is that some of the developments that have occurred, or are in the process of occurring with NXT leave ALOT of people exposed legally, and could be seen in court to be direct violations and criminal fraud. Truly a can of worms.
