 Yes, I guess I can skip that first slide which was initiated by discussions with Zönke. I think that idea had been presented now for a couple of times in some presentations. What I would like to add is that the science industry could maybe think a little bit more about adopting the open source philosophy from the software community. Because everything I'm hearing today is somebody is contributing money and is getting the research back or is earning anything arising from that research so that in the end it doesn't sound to me as if that research would be developed in any kind of open source manner. And I'm not a specialist on that but I know a couple of our clients they really believe and have proven that you can actually build revenue models on the basis of open source development so it doesn't always need to be protected research that's revenue generating so that maybe just as an idea. We already talked about this earlier. There are different types of blockchains and whenever you take a look at a specific project you need to understand what precisely are we talking about. That's a question of how far is this actually decentralized. We have two levels. We have the validation level. So the ones running the nodes, the validators and that can be either permission or permission less. Permission less obviously Bitcoin, Ethereum that's where the blockchain movement is coming from and then you can take a look at the access site and ask whether the blockchain is publicly accessible or only privately closed groups accessible. And yeah well the typical blockchain is to the top left and the most private industry blockchain or DLT consortia you see play in the lower right hand side angle and I personally believe that the one on the top on the right hand side the permissioned public ones are very interesting because they allow us from a legal perspective to actually put some kind of enforceable government structure on top of the blockchain and they don't need to be closed shop like. So I'm wearing the T-shirt of the IPDB as I supported that project right from the beginning and that is for example a German charitable foundation. It's here in Berlin and what they are trying to do is to organize a public blockchain where only the members of the blockchain can run the nodes so that there is through the membership there is a kind of legal governance also applying to everyone building up the network and there are certain rules who the members can be there always must be more than 50% from the nonprofit sector and only a minority from the private sector. So in case you're interested in supporting this we are always looking for further nonprofit members because there are more for-profit people knocking at our doors. So I actually like that area up there because it allows us to create a little bit more certainty on the legal side. Decentralization. So there are tons of projects out there which are basically typical centralized ventures using at some point of its product some blockchain technology. That's not really a decentralized thing although all of those projects always claim to be decentralized. You can actually mingle both things. You can for example set up a truly decentralized welcoming public network on a nonprofit basis and combine that with for-profit like software development entities where the founders and the people actually working to realize that project can also earn some money because that's always part of their incentive that they can feed their family from what they are doing. That's what basically Ethereum invented when creating the Ethereum Foundation doing the ICO out of that nonprofit entity and then distributing the funds to developers hiring their firms to actually support the further development of the code. So I think that's something to keep in mind even though everyone wants to earn some money you don't need to stick with a purely centralized venture and just using some blockchain technology in the back. There are I think better structures to build this up. What is a DAO? Everyone likes to create DAOs. A DAO is meant to be something that is not creating any legal entity between its participants but it's meant to be a code which is just loosely connecting people for one common purpose. Unfortunately if you join a group to pursue a common goal together then you are creating a legal entity under the most jurisdictions. I don't really came across any that is not knowing this type of like unregulated entity. In Germany it's called BGB Gesellschaft, Gesellschaft Bürgerlichen Rechts. It's a simple civil law partnership in other jurisdictions. Those things are called unincorporated entities. But the problem with these types of things is typically that this default entity where you end up with when you don't really choose a specific type of legal entity is that everyone involved has unlimited liability. So that's maybe something to think about prior to starting a DAO and how to prevent that. There had been some ideas to make an analogy to franchise systems for example because it is acknowledged that the partners in franchise systems do not create such a default entity. But that is simply due to the fact we call them star contracts because there is someone in the middle organizing the franchise system and everyone participating has a bilateral contractual relationship to the center. But if you don't have that connecting dot in the middle then it will be really tough to argue that you did not form such a default entity. So there is a lot of thinking surrounding this. How to actually in a legal fashion create a DAO which is not really owned by anyone specific and typically what's currently used are the foundations. In Germany we currently promote the foundation like limited liability companies because they are easier to handle but I think there will be a lot of development in that area. If you want to collect funds and I think that was always the question how do we get science funded? Most important thing, never rush, take your time. You cannot fund within two or even four or even six weeks properly. You need to think through the regulatory and the tax situation. Tax is really important. This nice example from Philip earlier with the three guys in Frankfurt asking for funds for their research calling it a donation token. Problem is if you're not a charitable organization then the donation is actually a present and if a present is not handed over within close family relationships then you get easily very high taxes on that. So that's typically something that you want to avoid. So what they could do, they could form an association like another fine for research purposes and then collect the donations into that charitable organization hiring them as scientists for actually undertaking that research. That would be, I guess, from the tax situation a better solution. Then the types of tokens and I'm very fond of the two research institutions who spoke earlier, the Frankfurt Business School and the Vienna University with its Crypto-Economic Institute. All of them having their own token classes and that sometimes makes it a little bit difficult. We need over time to agree on certain token classes in order to be able to easily communicate with each other and I completely agree it's a very difficult task because you can look at token classifications from so many angles but in order to understand the legal and the tax situations I'm jumping here, this is I think the most important thing to understand. We basically have three or if you include the donation token four types of tokens and they all boil down to the MIFID definition of security in Europe and the MIFID definition for securities requires transferability, take the box for most of the tokens. Negotiability, you can also take the box on the capital markets. They are the first question mark and arise but currently the regulators say any kind of cryptocurrency exchange is a capital market so better take the box. Standardized, there are very few tokens maybe crypto-kitties or something like that but otherwise again take the box and then the first one where you get a differentiator to other kinds of tokens is the requirement that security can never be an instrument of payment and that is where you get out of the security token definition for cryptocurrencies, for anything that is meant to be used as means of payment so typically Bitcoin and Ether would fall out of that definition here in Europe. That was it with the written requirements for securities and we always said within the finance group of the Bundesblock that's way too wide, we need another criteria limiting the security definition for token purposes and that is the last one comparable to typical equity or debt instruments so what makes a token comparable? And we believe it's basically the fact that you have the right to receive a financial return from the issuer and if that is the case you should typically be either in the debt or equity instrument area and you can read it now within the publication of the BAFIN, the German regulator from August this summer where they also repeat this restriction so that seems on the German end fairly accepted and we hope since that is a European definition here that also the European regulators as a whole will agree on this limitation for securities in the token area and that is then also the point where you distinguish from what we call utility token and I must admit we shouldn't use that term anymore because utility token is so confusing. The developers speak of a utility token when they speak of a native coin of a blockchain that's typically forming in our view a cryptocurrency and not a utility but what we mean with utility here is that it represents a right for a service or a good you will find typically voucher models or club models in this category and maybe the easiest differentiator between cryptocurrencies and utilities is when you ask the question is this instrument meant to be used in multilateral relationships between an unlimited number of people than you're playing in the cryptocurrency area or is this instrument only to be used in bilateral relationships whereby one of the parties of those bilateral relationships is always the issuer than you're down in the utility token category so that's the current view from the legal perspective here in Europe and that is deciding about many things about prospectus requirements, about license requirements it will also give you a hint what to do on the accounting side and on the text side with those token classes just an example utility tokens always come along with WAT and securities usually don't come along with WAT cryptocurrencies neither they have other problems if you issue a cryptocurrency you have an immense tax problem because you cannot book a liability or anything else on the other side of your balance sheet you increase the active side of your balance sheet immensely through an ICO but there's nothing to compensate for on the other hand that means profit tax immediately on the difference I lost it I guess you need to unlock it I think the next slide was about still have 10 minutes the next slide was about the US situation so you always have to keep in mind yes, you always have to keep in mind that law is already decentralized and a lot of people don't like this fact but think about it this way it would be a terrible thing if we would only have one global law and no choice were to live and under which circumstances so we might have a little bit too many of jurisdictions on our globe but the fact is such that law is decentralized is in my point of view a good thing however you have to deal with it a technology working on a global basis nevertheless cannot immediately result in offering on a global basis you need to go jurisdiction by jurisdiction and understand what's permitted and what needs to be done to be compliant in any jurisdiction that you're getting active in and a very good example is the token classification which deviates a lot between the US and Europe so typically even those tokens which do not require any license or permission or prospectors here in Europe will certainly fall under the securities regulation in the US and the reason is that they ask whether there are any expectations of profits from the investment, from the view of the investor that come from the efforts of a third party including the issuer so when you're buying a token and you're expecting to make a profit because somebody else is building something then you're a security under the US law and typically that captures the situation that you find in an ICO maybe to make it easier to realize I always like to compare it with the opening of a golf club where you sell your club memberships in advance prior to the loan being laid then that is a security in the US in Germany it would remain the sale of a club membership that's the main difference unfortunately the Swiss regulator has adopted its view fairly far towards the highway test so the public announcements made by the FMA really read also into that direction if you have a pre-functional token you always need to be careful because you might be a security under Swiss law so Switzerland moved a bit into that direction not sure if we... maybe a little bit Imani I think Philip mentioned that earlier that he would like to see a Euro token there is actually already a Euro token in place that is issued by a French entity called Tempo France so Tempo France is issuing the Euro token it seems to have all licenses its needs for that and it's promising that it will pay out the fiat Euro if you're handing back the Euro token to them so the market is already moving into that direction we call this kind of token Imani and it requires a license which our German regulator will unfortunately not grant to any startups it's seen as a small banking license because it allows you to make deposit making business deposit taking business you can take deposits from others and promise to pay back the fiat under certain circumstances and that's very highly protected and it's very difficult to obtain that license here in Germany there are other things to consider for example when you're issuing a profit participation as had been mentioned for research projects earlier you need to watch out that again you're not in the deposit taking business be deemed to be a bank requiring a banking license and how can you do that excluded from that are only bonds which you cannot issue because they are not digitized yet and then the second instrument is subordinated instruments so what you need to do with a profit participation when you want to issue that in Germany you need to put in a subordination clause alternative investment fund that's another large area of regulation and basically whenever people pool their funds to invest it in a certain manner together you're in the fund regulation which means that the manager of the fund needs again a license that could also easily happen with the research projects if they are not built up or set up in a way that they can be seen as an operational entity there are tons of other licenses and it's interesting to see when you're working on a lot of cases and having a lot of inquiries with the regulators that also they come up with new ideas and thoughts and currently what we're discussing is the basically in-house trading any company dealing with crypto is to some extent trading is to some extent trading also token and under certain circumstances this already might give reason to require a license that got into the focus just a month ago and I'm very curious where we end up with that topic so there are a lot of hurdles if people want to but in Germany I still recognize the regulator and also the politics to be fairly open they don't want to get everything out of control but they are also not acting in a way that they basically prevent everything but they expect you to talk to them and to comply with the current laws so some recommendations out of practice the white paper is a legally relevant document full stop, you will not get away with that so it must be truthful and yeah, draft it carefully then alongside of that come the terms and conditions for the token sale they might be combined with the terms and conditions how to use the tokens that's especially the case for the utility tokens or vouchers and the like and then number three is really important because the regulators read already tons of those don't copy and paste really, doesn't make any sense they won't believe your word really make it your own draft communicate with the regulators do not try to hide anything they are everywhere they are in telegram they have developers on their own which look into github so don't believe that they are not seeing what you're publicly doing out there yeah, whenever you want to go global as any project I think I know wants to do don't work with blacklists only start with a white list with a white list of countries where you feel comfortable and then decide step by step how to grow the blacklist approach really doesn't work in the regulatory field a lot of things that you might be doing without knowing could even bring you into jail so if you want to keep your freedom to travel you better check in advance where you market your tokens or where you sell it KYC-AML, well that's basic by now I don't have any project on my desk who's not doing KYC-AML anymore it's simply a requirement from the bank if you ever want to get feared back into your bank account you need to have that done and you can't repeat it if you did your ICO without doing that you have no chance whatsoever to get that information later on so better collect it at that point in time so that you're able to present it when it's needed and otherwise your bank might simply close down your account or freeze your funds pre-sale, nearly any project is coming and saying oh I'm doing my pre-sale tomorrow to a couple of friends well there is no exemption whatsoever for pre-sales so the laws apply for the first sale that you're doing that's simply the case e-commerce rules I personally believe they might be even more dangerous than the financial regulatory stuff there's a lot of things to observe and the e-commerce rules like the GDPR are not written for blockchain business models but they are written for typical internet business models so the rules don't really fit we lawyers don't really know how to apply there's a lot of uncertainty in that area and the last point I already made so thank you very much