Will VIDT be taken off IDEX?

>muh security token
>muh fud
>muh token not needed

Attached: vidtverifywitheye.jpg (800x600, 373K)

That man said he sold a week before that top was ever achieved. Stop tryna FUD, VIdT will soar miles

SEC does not consider tokens with burns and buybacks securities. Do your homework.

Attached: IMG_20190718_035944_033.jpg (1280x417, 28K)

Very nice man, gonna save this!

Post link to info on SEC classification of tokens and coins please? Can something be both an asset, as the IRS sees it, and a security as the SEC is concerned?

VIDT can be converted into VIDS, which are security tokens. But by knowing this, VIDT is a security token in a roundabout way. If SEC wanted to grill V-ID, that’s what they would say. but VIDT is a “nothing burger” so they won’t care. IDEX might though.

I'm sorry I should have looked it up, a security is type of asset, please ignore the second part of my post.

I'm a bitcoin maximalist. But when it comes to alts, only # will make it.

Couldn't find the source but you could try to ask in VIDT community channel.

Attached: Screenshot_20190718-040751_Samsung Internet.jpg (1440x3040, 985K)

just give idex a fake name for tier 1, damn. Like any of us need more than 5k/day withdrawal.

Dutch firm. Not American. CHX CEO said their token was legally cleared for the US then it turned it wasn’t. You’ve been warned.

Chx was a vaporwave scam which cannot be compared to GDPR compliant company which generates revenue. It doesn't matter if that law firm is located in a China as long as they can read in that firm.

>creates security token
>burns one token a week
>legally cleared for SEC
lol in your dreams

I know that burns are okay in SEC's eyes so I dom't give a fuck about you. Post me some valid info about how SEC considers coin burns as a security? You can't do it.

Explain why token burns are necessary if not to artificially pump the price to pacify VIDT holders? Now look up the Howey test.

I don't run an ICO so you have to ask that from SEC or an ICO. There is a reason why BNB does them and binance is complying with US laws.

No the team got legal confirmation that they are classified as utility

They're already burnt millions ya dingus

Binance tokens have utility for the user and they also cannot be converted into company shares. V-ID clients don’t hold VIDT themselves (they cannot transfer them to Metamask - they only see them as “credits” in their dashboard) and you also cannot stake them or anything of the sort. You also cannot use your VIDT tokens right now to verify files... unless you have a subscription plan with V-ID. SEC would not allow this if the company was on the level of Libra/Facebook for example.

Going by the image posted above, how many tokens do you need to burn for SEC to not consider it securities? It has to be millions? Or is there a percentage we can consult? Or is it that it’s a bullshit loophole that doesn’t even exist in the first place but sounds “right”.

VIDT tokens are used to KYC customer. There is coming a consumer app for V-ID in the coming months. All things what you just said does not still explain why there is burns for BNB and therefore we can safely assume that my info posted above is correct and burns are indeed OK for SEC.

I mainly trust what they said, they directly answered the question and said their law firm did not see it as a security. And I'm assuming it's if you're actually burning a large amount and not just low levels to try and evade being a security

Burns are obviously fine when the token has a utility. It does not have a utility right now. Until the consumer app is out, it has no utility to you or me. App won’t be out until 2020. And FYI even Flexacoin is considered securities until the SDK is out and the only reason it’s on IDEX is because of community efforts. Since there is no staking on that coin just yet, it has no utility and which is why it’s only available on IDEX and not mentioned by the team in any capacity. They’re based out of New York (you cannot even trade on IDEX if you’re in NY) and follow all the legal rules. VIDT isn’t in the US, so they don’t have to follow the same strict legalities. IDEX is implementing KYC for burgers now so do the math...

But let’s see what SEC has to say. Read and weep: sec.gov/corpfin/framework-investment-contract-analysis-digital-assets

>An AP creates or supports a market for,[17] or the price of, the digital asset. This can include, for example, an AP that: (1) controls the creation and issuance of the digital asset; or (2) takes other actions to support a market price of the digital asset, such as by limiting supply or ensuring scarcity, through, for example, buybacks, "burning," or other activities.

I think use cases are still being identified/developed in which circulating supply of VIDT could be used for something by non-enterpise markets as well.

If a company wanted to buy it off an exchange and then use it as a form of payment with V-ID they would be able to, quite easily in fact. However, while also ensuring that it remains a utility V-ID have eased the difficulties and created a 'middle layer' to save the client issues. They take a payment in FIAT, return x amount of V-IDT's and then allow them to complete the same process as if they had bought them themselves. It's a smart business concept. A company does not want to go through the issue of signing up, completing KYC/AML, waiting for it to be processed, buying tokens, moving off exchange, creating a wallet and FINALLY preparing for the validation. They want to be able to do it immediately and V-ID has ensured that can be done. It's genius. Furthermore, just because they've filled in the gaps does not turn it into a security. It is a utility token by design.

This should explain why it is an utility token.

ICO is not a digital asset. Why are you linking me this?

Before that it also says
>Although no one of the following characteristics is necessarily determinative, the stronger their presence, the more likely it is that a purchaser of a digital asset is relying on the "efforts of others":

Attached: IMG_20190718_051417_023.jpg (556x776, 68K)

>This should explain why it is an utility token.
Token not needed. See pic related. All you have in that tokenomics infographic are VIDT, Businesses, Exchanges, and Investors. There is no staking and there is no reason to hold VIDT.

Business wants files verified.
V-ID says that will be 12 Chuck E Cheese tokens or $1.55.
Business pays $1.55 to V-ID.
V-ID takes Chuck E Cheese tokens from their inventory, does the file verification and burns about 3 of those tokens from their inventory.
V-ID hops on IDEX and buys 1 VIDT from you and other anons.
Repeat.

What is the UTILITY of this token for you, user? Why would hold 10,000 VIDT? Just holding it in case V-ID comes on IDEX and buys it off of you? Is that the utility right now?

Yes and right before that the "efforts of others" includes token holders who bought it as a speculative asset for the sole purpose that they expect it will increase in value.
>Why are you linking me this?
Do not reply to me ever again.

Attached: token.jpg (1000x1083, 89K)

Is this the token where the company buys it and then burns the tokens to reduce supply? Because if so, that is absolutely a security

I just explained you. You're a fucking brainlet if you still don't understand that this token has way more utility right now than BNB.

With your brainlet logic you must consider magic cards as a fucking security because some kids sell them at a higher than original price. The absolute state of biz.

Kind of a whataboutism as BNB has nothing to do with V-ID.

All you said was my brainlet fren is that businesses can buy the tokens off of IDEX. On IDEX the tokens are more expensive, take more time to purchase, less reliable (% fees for transactions) and less secure than just giving the money straight to V-ID. You also have to have ETH in the first place, which you would have to buy from Coinbase in the US. Then send your VIDT tokens to the V-ID wallet and then somehow verify what those tokens were for and from who. No business is going to buy off of IDEX. All I see is a bullshit loophole, as would SEC (they're smarter than you or I).

Do you think V-ID ever says to a business "Well you can buy the tokens from us instantly for half the price or you can do what I just described"? Disingenuous bagholder argument.

Hmm trust a legal team's opinion who has their brand and reputation on the line, or keyboard warriors from biz thinking they know better. I know which I choose.

>you must consider magic cards as a fucking security because some kids sell them at a higher than original price.
You can hold a magic card in your hand. You can use it to play a game right now, as a collection, give yourself a papercut, or shove it up your ass as a makeshift dildo. A Chuck E Cheese token has more utility than VIDT. Imagine that.

Are you in high school still by chance?

Why is vidt getting so much attention on biz? Looks to be a massive scam from what I can tell.

They both are utility tokens so I think we can compare them especially when Binance is US compliant exchange and SEC knows about BNB for sure, as you said they are smarter than you and me. Current state of the law puts these tokens to grey area so as of now we are utility token until we hear more from SEC which is unlikely.

Actually its the exact opposite.

I can hold VIDT in my wallet and use it to confirm that my dick pic is valid soon. I can use it to verify many things. It's an utility token.

Brainlet like you won't understand anything what is spoken on this thread so its understandable to hear from you that its a scam. Go buy your shitty vaporwave tokens like EVE with 5k volume.

The VIDT doesn't even advertise, I see more RSR, linkchain, ONE, and LIT post then I do of VIDT

>Hmm trust a legal team's opinion who has their brand and reputation on the line, or keyboard warriors from biz thinking they know better. I know which I choose.
CHX was partnered with Perkins Coiem and NAGELE and both are law firms, latter specializing in crypto law. Now see this post and the counter-argument >They both are utility tokens so I think we can compare them especially when Binance is US compliant exchange and SEC knows about BNB for sure
techcrunch.com/2019/06/14/binance-begins-to-restrict-us-customers/
Let's see what happens with BNB and Burger Binance first before you make that statement. We know that FTM will not be available on there, for one.

>that my dick pic is valid soon
>soon
Ergo it's a security token right now. Right now. NOW. Now "tomorrow aka 2020 aka 2020 Q3"

lol rsr is legit a discord tranny PnD but you're here fudding vidt because it gets like 5% of the attention from \biz\

They must be shitty law firm if they can't read a fucking law. Are you a lawyer? If not, shut up and let lawyers to decide if this is a security or not. Right now they have said that VIDT is indeed a security. Public blockchain itself is an utility since it adds transparency.

Vidt worked with a legal team to ensure it wasn’t a security

This brainlet cannot seems to understand it.

>mommy said the earth was flat and that i'm the most handsome boy on the planet, so it must be true
>scientists said asbestos and cigarettes were safe, so i trust their word
>college professors said there is no difference between a men and a woman's brain so it must be true
Just admit you cannot argue against the point and have no facts other than "this person who holds a more prestigious title said so"

Everyone in the VIDT telegram says its a utility not a security

I wouldn't expect a small Dutch law firm to know the law of SEC in great detail and with all nuance. And anyone with half a brain knows that if SEC wanted to step in, by the time they took action and analyzed the situation, the consumer app for V-ID would be out rendering the argument moot because VIDT isn't a priority at all. IDEX could be concerned themselves however and simply disable trading for the same set of accounts that have the KYC requirement.

lol

Well I have not heard anyone who is a lawyer tell me that VIDT is not a security but I have seen a law firm telling that it is not. For me it seems that you cannot prove that VIDT is a security. You should start your own law firm if you are right.

>One lawyer was wrong about one thing so everyone else has to be too
Fucking brainlet

I doubt IDEX would do anything unless ordered to and since VIDT is an utility token well...
SEC doesn't give a fuck about some dutch firm anyways so nothing to fear.

>Well I have not heard anyone who is a lawyer tell me that VIDT is not a security but I have seen a law firm telling that it is not. For me it seems that you cannot prove that VIDT is a security. You should start your own law firm if you are right.
I already linked to SEC's website that explains it in great detail. What SEC says is what goes, lawyers play by their rules and you cannot loophole around it. It's their house and the house always wins: sec.gov/corpfin/framework-investment-contract-analysis-digital-assets

Then there's Howey Test.
>It is an investment of money
YES.
>There is an expectation of profits from the investment
YES.
>Any profit comes from the efforts of a promoter or third party
YES. Token burn, buy backs, and bagholders.

Start connecting the dots and don't wait to be spoonfed by an authority. The law is in that URL in greater detail than anywhere on the internet.

How much utility do you think there should be to you consider something as an utility token? What kind of utility? We don't have any idea what guidelines SEC will give us on some year so that icos can comoly with them. There is nothing on current law which would implicate that VIDT is a security.

And before you use your NPC logic of reading only the title of the article like it's on Buzzfeed:

>The so-called "Howey test" applies to any contract, scheme, or transaction, regardless of whether it has any of the characteristics of typical securities.[6] The focus of the Howey analysis is not only on the form and terms of the instrument itself (in this case, the digital asset) but also on the circumstances surrounding the digital asset and the manner in which it is offered, sold, or resold (which includes secondary market sales). Therefore, issuers and other persons and entities engaged in the marketing, offer, sale, resale, or distribution of any digital asset will need to analyze the relevant transactions to determine if the federal securities laws apply.

There is no expectation of profits as the team has made nothing which would implicate that. I yet to find you to find a clear spot which tells us that VIDT is a security. If a lawyer with 5 year education can't read link which you posted properly I am amazed. I doubt that they haven't go to SEC's own website to look what their guidelines are.

>How much utility do you think there should be to you consider something as an utility token? What kind of utility?
>Start connecting the dots and don't wait to be spoonfed by an authority.
Read the whole article.

So basically we don't know shit. Got you.

>I yet to find you to find a clear spot which tells us that VIDT is a security. If a lawyer with 5 year education can't read link which you posted properly I am amazed. I doubt that they haven't go to SEC's own website to look what their guidelines are.
What if I told you the US market currently doesn't matter to V-ID and their operations at all. At least not until the consumer app is out. Do you think the team would ever admit to being a security token? Or would they rather fly under the radar until it's time.. Low market cap shitcoin no one has ever heard of outside of pajeets on Twitter and Jow Forums

>There is no expectation of profits as the team has made nothing which would implicate that.
>There is no expectation of profits
You literally posted it earlier: and their buyback & burn program.

it still is possible

Correction: You don't know shit because you didn't read the article which explains that it would be considered a security in the eyes of SEC.

Buybacks and burns do not promise making profits. They are a lot different than dividents amd as of now we have no idea what SEC will decide in some day. I would think that they would admit if VIDT is a security token but.. Anyway all of this doesn't matter as of now since we will not have any guidelines for a long time and SEC doesn't give a fuck about pajeet shitcoin like VIDT.

sold at 43cents, can't wait for the KYC to dump this shit even lower so I can finally buy back in.

>SEC doesn't give a fuck about pajeet shitcoin like VIDT.
This we can agree on. The only issue is whether IDEX will care, especially if they look into ones with more volume. There have been precedent already to them delisting tokens for not being legal.

Aight I agree on this one. I highly doubt idex gives a fuck looking at how they handle tier 1 verification. Thanks for interesting discussion. Seems like a risky market right now but well worth it unless SEC goes crazy. I don't think that it would be a problem for VIDT if idex would delist them in mid to long term. That would kill their business anyway.

Dump? There is no reason for VIDT to sump because it will be not idex shitcoin for a long time.

>Thanks for interesting discussion. Seems like a risky market right now but well worth it unless SEC goes crazy.
I enjoyed our conversation. I got out of crypto until next month, want to see what happens with Tether and Bitfinex. Will buy back in if the news is good, but I have a feeling ETH will go down to $140-$170 soon. Watching from the sidelines for now. Burger government is fucking everything up.