Hacker News Reader

Comment by pjc50 | Hacker News Reader

> This document is confidential and by accepting delivery of this document, you agree to keep confidential all information contained herein.

Sorry, we can't discuss it.

The massive "NOT FOR UNITED STATES PERSONS" disclaimer isn't exactly encouraging either.

> You may not, nor are you authorised to, deliver or disclose the contents of this document to any other person.

Very clear that we can't discuss it.

> EFFORCE Limited, a Bahamas based company limited by shares, formed for the purpose of issuing EFFORCE tokens on behalf of its controlling entity EFFORCE Ltd, a Malta company

Nothing says "I am not a crook" like using two different corporate entities in notorious tax avoidance jurisdictions.

While Malta is in the Eurozone, I'm not sure you could launch something like this in a country with respectable financial regulators. Mind you, those are in short supply after Bafin/Wirecard...

View on HN

Starting a company on Malta is a pain so unless you live there or work in online gambling (where their regulations actually are decent) the only reason to do so is due to their lax regulations on the finance sector. Outside online gambling Malta is dreadful for startups, so that they are Malta based is indeed a bad sign.

My knowledge comes from having worked in the online gambling industry and knowing a lot of people who live in or have lived in Malta.

Indeed. The real parent company appears to be AitherCO2 SpA, and many of the staff listed are Italian. So there's a reason for not doing this as a SpA. On the other hand there appears to be a somewhat-genuine energy efficiency business under there. This reminds me of "Kodak gets into blockchain" or the Long Island Iced Tea fiasco (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-12-21/crypto-cr... )

The Bahamas are also not known for their regulatory rigor. Being based both in the Bahamas and in Malta seems even stranger, unless the company intends to engage in a level of shenanigans that would be beyond the tolerance of even a generally tolerant jurisdiction.

As a Swiss, I don't know whether I should be offended or relieved that our usual suspect, Zug, does not seem to be involved in this.

What's the story with Zug? It seems to be popular for several blockchain hawking companies.

For one thing, it has the lowest tax rate in Switzerland

Low tax rates, lax regulation, and a relatively efficient and impartial court system (our courts are definitely in the pocket of capitalism, but not so much in the pocket of individual capitalists) have led to a proliferations of companies there, many of whose existence in Zug consists solely of a mailbox.

This has also led to a proliferation of local talent which looks passable in a suit, can open mailboxes, is versed in law and/or accounting, and does not steal excessive amounts of money.

The business model is basically "stuff that is not provably illegal yet". During the Cold War, Switzerland got away with a lot, but in recent years, many formerly lucrative areas of business started drying up thanks to stricter money laundering laws etc. So for an ecosystem that has evolved to accommodate financial engineering right at the edge of legality, cryptocurrency seemed almost a custom made niche.

> work in online gambling (where their regulations actually are decent)

This claim is false. The internet is littered with corpses of Malta-based gambling sites that exit scammed their playerbase. This doesn't occur in jurisdictions where the gambling regulations are "decent".

Edit: unless you mean "decent" from the perspective of unscrupulous gambling sites who are looking to scam people out of money.

While I'm skeptical of the project, as expressed in another comment, that's not really an unusual disclaimer for a project like this on first announcement. It takes time to figure out all the legalities in all the different jurisdictions, and not having such a disclaimer could get them into a lot of trouble down the road.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com