It’s safe to say that everyone knew consensus was going to be extremely hard.
Dating back to earliest forums and boards, the Bitcoin community has always been pondering on how to expand the Bitcoin network to keep up with the work load and accommodate a larger number of transactions. However, it wasn’t until the year 2014 this idea got the spotlight.
Since then, there has been a heated, non-stop debate which, at best, has showcased the creativity of developers working on the project and, at worst, the damage that a non-stop debate can cause to the scientific pursuit.
Now, the experts look back to major stories in an attempt to recognize what could be a notable milestone that shaped the narrative.
Back in 2017, a boom in ICO creation was seen as hundreds of companies that were formed on the Blockchain with its attached digital currency were born in the form of an investable token. SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission) already had a closer look at the ICOs token and has declared them securities in most cases. Not every token that is being developed off the Blockchain should have that quality that directs it to be categorized as securities. Only a few other types of tokens are available that can be built off the Blockchain and one of them are utility tokens.
Although there are more than two types of tokens, it’s still essential to improve these two types, as they can be used in defining a new token that comes through an ICO- the security and utility token. To understand the divergence between these two tokens, a direction can be selected by ICO that can work better for them.
What is Security Token?
If a value of crypto-token originates from an external tradable asset, it is categorized as a security token. If we look at the DAO tokens from 2016, it was declared by SEC that ICO tokens might be a subject to federal securities laws. ICO tokens never meant to be securities, but the chairman of SEC, Jay Clayton, noted that every ICO token that SEC has seen so far is considered as security and clarified, that if a crypto-asset that is allotted by a company upsurges in worth over time, depending on the company’s performance, it is also considered as security.
What is Utility Token?
Utility tokens are another style of tokens that serve a role in various cases where there’s a requirement of the security token. A utility token represents the future access to a service or a product of the company. The characteristic that defines the utility tokens is that they’re not intended for investments. If they’re properly organized, then this characteristic frees utility tokens from federal laws governing securities.
You can also say that utility tokens are the coupons for the company. It’s basically a token that is different from the typical ICO token that is being used by many at this time. Despite the fact that it’s not perfect for every company, there are still many examples where utility tokens have a great place against the security tokens.
Should you choose utility over security?
Many companies rely on the “securities” but still, there are many companies that will not do the same. There is a collection of multiple types of utility tokens as each of them has different features that could include the needs of ICO. So, it’s really important to split the tokens into fungible or non-fungible.
James Howells, the IT laborer who unwittingly disposed of a hard drive containing what is currently valued at around $75 million worth of bitcoin, knows where the missing hard drive is, but he can’t try to recover it. That’s because the city in which the fortune is covered won’t enable him to delve into the landfill.
The missing hard drive is sitting somewhere under 200,000 tons of junk in a Newport, South Wales landfill.
Howells used an old PC to mine a sum of 7,500 bitcoins in 2009. Presently, he sold the parts to the Dell M1710 on eBay after his girlfriend complained about the mining’s clamor. He kept the hard drive in a cabinet, just in case the bitcoins increased in esteem. However, he overlooked the hard drive, and after four years, he disposed of it with the trash.
Howells has not been able to get consent from city chamber to dig into the landfill to recover the hard drive. Doing as such would require particular hardware that is typically used as a part of criminal examinations.
He was informed that a situation where even the police needed to go digging would require a group of 15, incorporating diggers with compulsory personal protection equipment. He couldn’t reserve such an operation, so he set up a wallet for donations:
City Council Denies Permission:
A Newport City Council representative said somebody has reached them in the past about recovering IT equipment containing bitcoins, but the chamber has shied away because of the expenses of uncovering the landfill and treating the trash, as per Wired. Such an exertion would cost millions and be environmentally destructive, with no assurance that a working drive would be recuperated. Around 50,000 tons of waste is added to the landfill every year.
A city chamber representative said the drive has likely experienced genuine galvanic corrosion from landfill leachates and gases. The landfill isn’t open to the public use.
Howells has the public address for his bitcoin, so he knows the bitcoins have not been moved. Since the information is encrypted, any individual who finds the hard drive would require Howells’ assistance to get to it.
Story credits: ccn.com
Image: Google images
On 19th March, SFC website posted that the Securities and Futures Commission of Hong Kong has halted the Black Cell Technology’s ICO (Initial Coin Offering) because the offering is constituted as an unregistered CIS (Collective Investment Scheme).
Now the investors of Hong Kong must have to be refunded by the Black Cell for their investments in the tokens. This would support “Krops,” which is a mobile application and a marketplace that lists the agricultural products. At the same time, many warnings have been issued by SFC for companies before, however, today is the very first intervention of shutting down ICO technologies in Hong Kong.
Black Cell to Its Investors
Black Cell promoted the ICO on its website by enlightening their investors that their investment would be considered as funding and will be used for the development of Krops mobile application. Black Cell also told the investors that the token holders would have the rights equivalent to the Black Cell.
In January 2018, a cease-and-desist order was filed by the Philippines SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission) against four different companies that were linked with Krops and Black Cell as well as for offering Krops token in the form of securities.
Why Black Cell was targeted?
Black Cell was specifically targeted because their token provides a return for token holders. That was the move which labelled the token as a potential security. There’s no doubt that their other projects have been more abstruse in their approach but on the other hand, it avoided direct regulatory involvement. Even with the authorities making their approach clear towards ICOs, the question still remains the same that for how long that autonomy will continue.
Jay Clayton Views
The U.S. SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission) is taking a hard line on the ICOs following the securities laws. Jay Clayton, head of SEC has recently noted that all the ICOs that he has seen need to be considered as security and added, that they should be registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission before they are sold to the investors of US.