I've just read through the past few day's posts. It seems that some are trying to make a distinction where no distinction exists.
Here's the central criteria; Section 17(b) if the Securities Act of 1933:
It shall be unlawful for any person, by the use of any means or instruments of transportation or communication in interstate commerce or by the use of the mails, to publish, give publicity to, or circulate any notice, circular, advertisement, newspaper, article, letter, investment service, or communication which, though not purporting to offer a security for sale, describes such security for a consideration received or to be received, directly or indirectly, from an issuer, underwriter, or dealer, without fully disclosing the receipt, whether past or prospective, of such consideration and the amount thereof.
There are no qualifiers there; no reference to alleged noble purpose, nothing carving out that one type of compensation is different from any other, no "except for ____" clauses. The language is what it is. In a nutshell, if one is paid to post then one is obligated to disclose. That said, it is up to the poster to decide if they are subject to 17(b), and if so, then we provide the means for them to comply.
We encourage such persons to participate and provide the tools for them to do so. If they say they are not required to disclaim, that is between them and the appropriate agency. We are NOT a regulatory or law enforcement agency, and regulatory and law enforcement agencies don't operate message boards.
The program is simple in concept and intent. It is what it is. We're not contemplating any material changes; it is not a central focus nor is it going to be. It is but one of many tools and features provided by the site, and the terms and implementation are defined and determined solely by iHub.
