Users Suspected RusGas of Scam

Reddit users have already accused RusGas of exit scam, since its behavior is much like  recent scam project Oyster Protocol
07 December 2018   1286

The RusGas cryptocurrency project (RGS) demonstrates disturbing signs and releases new tokens in excess of the pre-set emission limit, Cryptovest reports. With an aggregate capitalization of $ 117, RGS trading volume for the last few days is $ 35,000. Events unfold against the backdrop of promises made by the project organizers about the upcoming restart.

Most of the RGS trade is focused on the Crex24 exchange, which has a daily  of $ 700,000. RusGas had a daily volume of several million dollars in its best days, which already then caused questions about the authenticity of this value.

According to CoinMarketCap, RGS emissions are limited to 10 billion tokens, but Etherscan indicates that currently 298 addresses contain 860 billion RGS. The rapid growth of emissions was recorded in recent days and hours. The largest wallet contains 99% of all tokens, which is probably the crex24 wallet. The developers themselves explain these movements to the next restart.

Reddit users have already accused RusGas of exit scam, since its behavior is much like  recent scam project Oyster Protocol(PRL), when the additional issue feature was used in a smart contract.

The likelihood of such an outcome is a characteristic feature of projects based on the Ethereum protocol, which allows additional emission of tokens through a smart contract at the discretion of its owner, not to mention other vulnerabilities that cost investors a lot of money.

RusGas is based on the idea of ​​using tokens and blockchains to optimize the Russian gas industry. Despite the dubiousness of the project’s mission, the data on the network indicates that in April of this year he managed to raise $ 2.2 million for ICO.

US Crypto Companies to Support TON in Case With SEC

The Blockchain Association said Telegram taken sufficient measures to ensure that the Gram token offer met SEC requirements
23 January 2020   133

The Blockchain Association, which combines companies such as Coinbase, Circle, 0x and Ripple, issued an expert opinion as part of the ongoing proceedings of the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) with Telegram.

Previously, the Digital Commerce Chamber launched a similar initiative. The blockchain association, however, was more straightforward and stated that Telegram had taken sufficient measures to ensure that the Gram token offer met SEC requirements. According to members of the organization, the actions of the SEC can damage not only Telegram, but the market as a whole.

The Court should not block a long-planned, highly anticipated product launch by interfering with a contract between sophisticated private parties. Doing so would needlessly harm the investors that securities laws were designed to protect.

 

The Blockchain Association

The Blockchain Association notes that for many years it has not been possible for SEC to obtain clear and unambiguous guidance for conducting activities in the cryptocurrency space, while the claims of the regulator make the current situation even more ambiguous. 

The SEC’s lawsuit also raises novel questions regarding whether companies are forbidden from raising funds from sophisticated U.S. investors, under well-established regulatory provisions, to build blockchain networks.

 

The Blockchain Association

They cite examples of startups TurnKey Jet and Pocketful of Quarters, in respect of which the regulator recommended not to apply legal measures, adding that such litigations inevitably involve high costs and do not guarantee industry participants that they will not be prosecuted in the future.

Telegram discussed its plans with SEC staff for a year and a half, provided copious information and responded to limited feedback by adjusting the design of its transaction. Yet, at the end, the SEC has sued, and the SEC’s briefs thus far say nothing about the substance of those discussions. 

 

The Blockchain Association

In conclusion, the group asks the court to “reject the SEC’s arguments that the not-yet-in-existence Grams were securities at the time of the Purchase Agreements.”