So lets say there was an ICO in the US that was approved/registered

and then he wears sandals

really?

>>3143353
>he

>>3143313
that might be the first SEC approved ICO. the rest of the world might take more notice than people that live in merica would.
the features of the coin matter more. what are those?

>>3143827
Well I know a way to reliability realize between 50% and 30% ROI before transfer fees and such, using unregistered SEC securities. The thing is, no one can do that unless they're an accredited investor. I have 6 years of experience in the space, and know exactly what I'm doing, just not the funds to qualify.

That's where the coin comes in. The funds from the coin would make the company an accredited investor.
The sell point of the coin is that ALL net profits from the company's operations would be used to buy-back the coin, indefinitely, and held for the long-term in a public address.

Would you buy or no?

>50%
>reliable
What timeframe? Sounds less than beleivable. The whole idea seems out of place with traditional coins. No development or anything. That could be a good thing, super simple. At 50% roi using all of the ico funds, you'd be increasing the marlet cap a lot.

>>3145095
Fastest turnover is 6 months, per SEC regulation. It's actually very reliable. The contracts I would enter into would have a discount price on equity build in so it literally guarantees a certain amount of profit.
Yes, no development team. Just a token.

>you'd be increasing the marlet cap a lot
$1m of ICO funding -> invest in contracts -> 6 months -> 50% roi -> $500k in coins bought off the exchange and held - > repeat
That's not even best case scenario, but it's optimal. Worst case, one of the investment vehicles becomes illiquid.