I posted this:
Second, we need a lawyer. This is a good thing, 'cause a you can't hack laws without a lawyer (most of the time, anyway...), and (ObThreadRelevance) we need one to pitch this stuff to other lawyers (regulators, et. al.) anyway...
In search of Vinnie "the Pro" Bono, honorable second cousin of the esteemed mayor of Palm Springs,
Bob Hettinga
I got the following in e-mail from a law professor (shall we call him/her "Professor Vinnie"?) who wants to remain nameless for some reason... Somebody should teach "him" how to use a remailer, eh? This person is emblematic of all the usual interface problems with spiffy new stuff... Oh well. The posting is late because of the time took me to get permission. They should be a little faster next time. Here's what s/he said:
My specialties involve law about the government, not law about financial transactions, so I'm guessing more than anything else here, but it seems to me that there are two simple rules of thumb that ought to apply:
1) E$ is not a security so long as there is no suggestion that you might ever get back more than you paid. I.E. no interest, no dividends, no profits. So long as e$ is exchanged at 1:1 (or less if there is a transaction fee) with US$, then odds are very good it's not going to be seen as a security, at least under federal law (who knows what funny rules they may have in *your* state...).
2) It's not going to be a scrip problem so long as every e$ is purchased in advance for a US$. People run into problems when they are seen to be creating value, e.g. as banks do with fractional reserve lending. So long as e$ sticks close to the travellers check model, I would imagine (remember: NO RESEARCH WAS DONE TO REACH THESE CONCLUSIONS) that the only rules which apply in the US will be UCC rules that apply to checks, and IOUs. This would seem to be a desireable state of affairs for e$.
I am late to this subject, so if in fact e$ fails either of the tests above, please let me know.
After I got this, I asked "him" to reply directly to the list, and "he" replied declining to do so, the following is the only part of "his" reply that is relevant to the above.
I should warn you again: I'm an administrative lawyer. The 'research' for that note consisted of five minutes conversation in bed with my <spouse> who is a securities lawyer. From another country. There's a good chance I have no idea what I'm talking about...
Great. We've got ourselves a lawyer in the loop who'll help us talk about this stuff. I fingered "him" <fingering a lawyer?> and "he" looks real to me. Guess I have some reading to do about this anonymity stuff, eh? Anyway, it's real nice to have another pair of (trained) eyes looking at the problem. Cheers, Bob Hettinga (Human remailer and mouthpiece mouthpiece) ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah@shipwright.com) "There is no difference between someone Shipwright Development Corporation who eats too little and sees Heaven and 44 Farquhar Street someone who drinks too much and sees Boston, MA 02331 USA snakes." -- Bertrand Russell (617) 323-7923