Is it difficult to launch on real coin?

[Sister Spam]

Thanks for your reply, @Builder Dave

What I'm saying is that when the owner of the token is in a jurisdiction where it is illegal to sell securities without a license (outside of the jurisdiction of the trust):
1. It might have been a crime for you/the trust to sell them the token and you might be liable especially in jurisdictions with robust long arm statues;
2. They have no legal recourse to make you liable to pay them out the rental income as the contract is not legal in their jurisdiction and thus void;
3. The owner of the token might have committed a crime in their jurisdiction.

1. Agreeing/signing a contract which falls under jurisdiction X does not mean I am - well, the Trust or the Trustee - is committing a crime whatsoever if parts of the contract are 'illegal' in jurisdiction Y (the one of the buyer). Important is that jurisdiction X allows binding obligations to cypto coins.

2. They have. In the jurisdiction of the Trust and/or the Trustee. Also, the Trust/Trustee has the obligation. Not honoring the contract is a crime and scam.

3. Signing a contract in another jurisdiction than their own is not a crime. (Example: I invest into Weed stocks even it's illegal in my country). Also, besides that, where exactly is writing a contract into a token illegal? In most countries a contract written on toilet paper is a valid contract and it could be that the contract is valid in A but invalid in B - so it's enforceable in A. The question is just if the governing law the Trust's jurisdiction allows that. Btw, the EU lawyer I talked with says "just call it dividend payment' instead of 'rental income distribution' .

And another important thing that I wanted to point out - in the trust situation, most of the important contractual stuff (a binding and enforceable promise for you to pay them their share of the rental income) needs to happen off-chain. And I'm not sure there are any jurisdictions where trading a token is a robust, legally recognized and enforceable way to transfer that contractual promise to a third party. You can check it legally, but unless the trust jurisdiction has robust legislation that specifically recognizes block chain transactions as a legitimate way to transfer contractual obligations and benefits from one party to another, the trust promising a payout might be in a grey area of enforceability after the tokens start to be traded freely. Maybe there are such jurisdictions, I don't know. But it certainly becomes grey as soon as the tokens start to be traded freely internationally for some of the traders. Even if the owner ends up from a jurisdiction that allows this, what happens if an intermediary owners was from a jurisdiction where this is illegal, unenforceable or simply not covered by a specific law. That contract might still be void and it might still have been illegal for the final owner to purchase it as he purchased it from a jurisdiction where it is illegal.

Yes, exactly! That's the key point. it has to happen 'off-chain' however the contract and obligations of the Trust/Trusteee will be put into the token/smart contracts. The UK sees contracts put into smart contracts as enforceable. Also, Cook Islands. More questionable than the Trust's obligation to pay out all profits as dividends via issuing new tokens and distributing them is actually ownership of the house/land. But then again, a the tokenized contract saying that the Trust is obligated to honor the tokenized ownership (offered anonymousely) is basically legal in certain jurisdication.s. The illegal vs legal quesiton seems to be more a question of 'is not specifically forbidden' - otherwise how would it be possible to allow Weed stocks in a country that classifies it as a crime.

There are a ton of wrinkles and all of them might be loopholes for you to exploit in order to avoid paying out the promised shares of the rental income of the property.

Yes, it's 3 companies in 3 jurisidctions . 1. for the crypto / ico license, 2. for the Trust, and 3. for the ownership of the house

On top of this, the trust can simply go bankrupt after you have syphoned out all the cash out of it in one way or another. Maybe the piece of real estate might have to be left stuck in the trust, but it could still be a huge loss for the token owners and a huge win for the token and trust founder.

Well, sounds like a crime? Just stealing funds out of the company? I mean, most of the stuff is just considered a crime even without tokens.

As the legality of it all is so complicated and uncertain, you could just stop paying out what you have promised and welcome the eventual litigation when and if it comes expecting that very few token owners would have a viable case and even fewer would have the resources and desire to pursue it. If you made enough money to begin with, it might actually still be a very profitable strategy for you even after you pay your lawyers to fight incoming litigation and settle the litigation you can't win, dismiss or escape.

Yeah, well, that's true. But still, everybody could do it. I buy regulary from Chinese manufcaturers and they could just scam me but they don't. Either it's a scam or it's not.

I'm in the EU and if I invested in such a token, it would be because I trust you personally to keep your promise because of the value of your reputation that is on the line, not because I would be truly convinced that there would be a legal way for me to enforce the payout.

Yeah, the project and the people have to be trustworthy. On the other hand, people who scam would invest a lot to make it look trustworthy as well and you still might fall for it.

 

[Builder Dave]

It's fascinating for me to think about this case, so I'll reply again. It should go without saying that my replies should be taken with a boulder of salt as I'm not a lawyer and I'm not familiar with the actual laws. It's more of a hypothetical I'm considering. It's possible that an experienced international lawyer could knock out all of my concerns with ease and aplomb. However, I do believe the fact that this is fascinating is a clear marketing opportunity for such a token if you decide to actually go through with it.

Yes, it's 3 companies in 3 jurisidctions . 1. for the crypto / ico license, 2. for the Trust, and 3. for the ownership of the house

Now that makes it even more fun! I personally wouldn't feel very protected investing into a token with such a holding structure. But this makes it even more fascinating to think about. The more the jurisdictions, the lower the likelihood of enforceability I guess.

1. Agreeing/signing a contract which falls under jurisdiction X does not mean I am - well, the Trust or the Trustee - is committing a crime whatsoever if parts of the contract are 'illegal' in jurisdiction Y (the one of the buyer). Important is that jurisdiction X allows binding obligations to cypto coins.

Not necessary. Depends on the type of contract and the specifics of jurisdiction Y. For example, if you run an online casino in jurisdiction X where online casinos are not regulated at all, if you allow people from jurisdiction Y to gamble in your online casino, you could still be committing a crime in jurisdiction Y. Jurisdiction Y could still prosecute you for this as by transacting with a citizen of theirs you might have availed yourself to their jurisdiction from their point of view. It's not about signing the contract, it's about offering a service that requires a license you don't have or is illegal in jurisdiction Y.

2. They have. In the jurisdiction of the Trust and/or the Trustee. Also, the Trust/Trustee has the obligation. Not honoring the contract is a crime and scam.

The question is whether it's enforceable and whether the Trust Deed is crafted in a way that's bulletproof for the token holders; or whether there are loopholes left possibly on purpose to make it unenforceable or to diminish the punishment for the trustee for breaches or abuse. For instance, there might be an overzealous indemnity clause that would severely limit the token owner from taking legal action against the trust or their ability to collect a remedy; or a choice of court clause that would move any litigation in regard to the trust outside of the jurisdiction where the trust is located where the obligations taken up by the trustee would be void. You can't expect the token holders to be fluent in international law and in the end it's a matter of you convincing them that the trust is bound by your promise and not a matter of whether the trust can actually be bound to the promise. People often have no clue what they are doing - see the people buying up the $Vine token by the Vine founder thinking it is somehow connected to Twitter/X bringing Vine back.

3. Signing a contract in another jurisdiction than their own is not a crime. (Example: I invest into Weed stocks even it's illegal in my country). Also, besides that, where exactly is writing a contract into a token illegal? In most countries a contract written on toilet paper is a valid contract and it could be that the contract is valid in A but invalid in B - so it's enforceable in A. The question is just if the governing law the Trust's jurisdiction allows that. Btw, the EU lawyer I talked with says "just call it dividend payment' instead of 'rental income distribution' .

It's not signing the contract that's the issue. You can sign contracts with people from other jurisdictions about services to the rendered there. What I'm referring to is cases where the individual in a different jurisdiction is barred from purchasing such services by specific regulations. If I sign a contract with somebody that's in a jurisdiction where drugs are legal for them to supply me with drugs that are illegal in my jurisdiction, I'm committing a crime. Maybe in most jurisdictions what you are suggesting is indeed legal. I'm considering whether there are enough edge cases where it's illegal. The weed stocks might not be illegal for you to own, but they are certainly illegal for a North Korean citizen to own. Of course, the EU lawyer surely knows better than me and has more information regarding your idea than me.

Well, sounds like a crime? Just stealing funds out of the company? I mean, most of the stuff is just considered a crime even without tokens.

Yep. My concern is whether the token holders have a legal recourse that would provide them with a viable remedy in that case. When something is 100% on-chain, you expect that the blockchain itself would ensure that the transaction would be finalized properly and that's what makes it appealing in my opinion. When most of the obligations are taken up off-chain, you lose that benefit of security. When you have to go through litigation which is risky and expensive, there are no guarantees. As a lot of this has not been explicitly legislated for, there might be pleasant or unpleasant surprises in court if it comes to that.

Either it's a scam or it's not.

Indeed.

Anyway, good luck and keep us posted!

I'm not a big crypto fan, but if you make the token, I already feel psychologically invested enough to actually buy it just to see how it goes.

 

[Funiki]

The whole family of spammers is here? That’s great to grow a memecoin , there is no need to shilling

 

[onlinemarketer12]

The concept sounds funny but you never know what clicks with crypto investors. So you can give it a try.

 

[Sister Spam]

It's fascinating for me to think about this case, so I'll reply again. It should go without saying that my replies should be taken with a boulder of salt as I'm not a lawyer and I'm not familiar with the actual laws. It's more of a hypothetical I'm considering. It's possible that an experienced international lawyer could knock out all of my concerns with ease and aplomb. However, I do believe the fact that this is fascinating is a clear marketing opportunity for such a token if you decide to actually go through with it.

I worked 10 years for an international tax lawyer/accountant but mostly focusing on hiding money totally illegally (only for the 'buyer' ).

Now that makes it even more fun! I personally wouldn't feel very protected investing into a token with such a holding structure. But this makes it even more fascinating to think about. The more the jurisdictions, the lower the likelihood of enforceability I guess.

To make it legal, I think it's necessary. To have a crypto ico license in a somewhat reputable country (in a broader sense) is one step ahead of the competition already. Unfortunately this jurisdiction isn't a great location for Trusts and the house is somewhere else... , well, imagine the Trust is Switzerland or Liechtenstein and the only visible company.

Not necessary. Depends on the type of contract and the specifics of jurisdiction Y. For example, if you run an online casino in jurisdiction X where online casinos are not regulated at all, if you allow people from jurisdiction Y to gamble in your online casino, you could still be committing a crime in jurisdiction Y. Jurisdiction Y could still prosecute you for this as by transacting with a citizen of theirs you might have availed yourself to their jurisdiction from their point of view. It's not about signing the contract, it's about offering a service that requires a license you don't have or is illegal in jurisdiction Y.

Yeah, that's what happened to the BTC-e tech admin or whoever the guy was, they just arrested him for money laundering, for actually just running a crypto exchange. But, casino is heavily regulated and each country wants to maintain sovereignty and authority over that. Good example is Germany, they had only one licensed online casino for a very long time and bwin was run on a Soviet Germany license, lmao, however Germans are still able to play online and nobody gets arrested for allowing Germans on their sites.

The question is whether it's enforceable and whether the Trust Deed is crafted in a way that's bulletproof for the token holders; or whether there are loopholes left possibly on purpose to make it unenforceable or to diminish the punishment for the trustee for breaches or abuse. For instance, there might be an overzealous indemnity clause that would severely limit the token owner from taking legal action against the trust or their ability to collect a remedy; or a choice of court clause that would move any litigation in regard to the trust outside of the jurisdiction where the trust is located where the obligations taken up by the trustee would be void.

True and I know you're describing it out of the buyer's pov, but my intent is not to scam but actually the opposite and I have a lot of ideas how to add trust to he project, f. ex. if a certain % of coins/tokens are held, the owner can actually transfer the coins to stocks at the project's backend, and become a real world owner, or giving coin/token owners the right to issue taks for the company to be voted on by all coin/token owners, and so on and on.

You can't expect the token holders to be fluent in international law and in the end it's a matter of you convincing them that the trust is bound by your promise and not a matter of whether the trust can actually be bound to the promise. People often have no clue what they are doing - see the people buying up the $Vine token by the Vine founder thinking it is somehow connected to Twitter/X bringing Vine back.

Yeah absolutely, but so is everything. Imagine starting a insurance company and promising something for customer's in 50 years. Convincing is marketing and a real non scam project has definitely a head start. Also, I don't just see a contract as a non-binding promise - a contract is a contract - if someone decides to scam, he doesn't need a coin/token.

It's not signing the contract that's the issue. You can sign contracts with people from other jurisdictions about services to the rendered there. What I'm referring to is cases where the individual in a different jurisdiction is barred from purchasing such services by specific regulations. If I sign a contract with somebody that's in a jurisdiction where drugs are legal for them to supply me with drugs that are illegal in my jurisdiction, I'm committing a crime. Maybe in most jurisdictions what you are suggesting is indeed legal. I'm considering whether there are enough edge cases where it's illegal. The weed stocks might not be illegal for you to own, but they are certainly illegal for a North Korean citizen to own. Of course, the EU lawyer surely knows better than me and has more information regarding your idea than me.

If the jurisdiction X says its possible and the Trust is there, and jurisdiction Y does not say buying is illegal, I don't see a problem for anybody. And if it's illegal to buy tokenized dividend payments and fractional house ownership in North Korea, I would expect them to tell me and give me the opportunity to act, then I could decide to follow, or not, as the jurisdiction I am in says everything is legal. Depends on who is talking, I guess - 'This site does not provide services for US residents'.

Yep. My concern is whether the token holders have a legal recourse that would provide them with a viable remedy in that case. When something is 100% on-chain, you expect that the blockchain itself would ensure that the transaction would be finalized properly and that's what makes it appealing in my opinion. When most of the obligations are taken up off-chain, you lose that benefit of security. When you have to go through litigation which is risky and expensive, there are no guarantees. As a lot of this has not been explicitly legislated for, there might be pleasant or unpleasant surprises in court if it comes to that.

Well, it's a real world asset - so somehow it needs to be connected. And looking at the UK, who's saying that smart contracts are real world contracts, I don't see why they're less safe than a pure offline contract.

Indeed.

Anyway, good luck and keep us posted!

Well, probably not. But need to play it safe, nobody will trust my coin if they link it to BHW

I'm not a big crypto fan, but if you make the token, I already feel psychologically invested enough to actually buy it just to see how it goes.

Thanks, but no

 

[Builder Dave]

Well, it seems you have thought it through. If you get the branding and marketing right, it could work.

Imagine starting a insurance company and promising something for customer's in 50 years. Convincing is marketing and a real non scam project has definitely a head start. Also, I don't just see a contract as a non-binding promise - a contract is a contract - if someone decides to scam, he doesn't need a coin/token.

Well, to be honest, insurance companies are not exactly the type of companies I hold as an example of trustworthiness

And looking at the UK, who's saying that smart contracts are real world contracts, I don't see why they're less safe than a pure offline contract.

Then as far as the UK goes smart contracts are even better than pure offline contracts as they include built-in record keeping.

Well, probably not. But need to play it safe, nobody will trust my coin if they link it to BHW

We might recognize the project when it comes out anyway.

I guess you don't need me to tell you that tying it to a piece of real estate is cool on the one hand, but limiting on the other.

 

[Sister Spam]

We might recognize the project when it comes out anyway. I guess you don't need me to tell you that tying it to a piece of real estate is cool on the one hand, but limiting on the other.

Well, yeah. Maybe not, I am probably not the first one wanting to tokenize a house . But this also gets me thinking about the scalability, the rental income is just like 1k after taxes, so interest might be lower... but then I see frog coins; it might not matter anyway. I am also thinking of the project as marketing / portfolio for my consultancy agency.

Anyway, thanks for the discussion so far, it helped me sort my thoughts a bit and get on topic. Now the only question is how much I am gonna pay a developer to code that, and if I even can trust him to not running off with my house at the end

 

[willIAm_c351]

ship has sailed saaar

 

[thewarcritic]

I'd say do it, however instead of just your house, get a few other homeowners onboard , push it to $5-10million, these crypto bros won't do anything for $100k

 

[RML]

If i want to launch a real coin with some contracts, like I would attach my house ownership to a coin launched on Solana, is this possible?

Like, I have a house worth $100,000 and want to create 100k coins each worth $1 so that each owner of a coin is basically a fractional owner of my house and I would pay out the rent income to all the coin owners / with the same coin.

Is this possible and what would I have to pay a coder?

I remember see a bruh launching a coin in some seconds, google it.

I know something worth what people pays to own. If your coin have like 100M supply and someone pay a dollar for only a coin, market cap will worth 100M USD and a coin will worth a dollar.

You understood G?

 

[Sister Spam]

ship has sailed saaar

For Indians for sure. But imagine your CFO is a 55 yo White accountant called Mr. Mendel.

 

[Seo Captain]

Not at all difficult. Some people have made a buisness out of it.

 

[Sister Spam]

Not at all difficult. Some people have made a buisness out of it.

Really? What a non-spam comment of yours!

Spam like that affect your signature links negatively. I wouldn't even consider reading it.