This statement could mean just about anything. My understanding is that desalination plants often have a fairly-sizable fairly-dead-zone around them, taht the salinity is a pretty pronounced local issue.
Sea-water is about 3.5% salt by weight. Are you saying that the brine water coming out is 3.5 * 1.025% salt, or that it's 5.5% salt? Do you have anything you can cite? What % of the water that goes in the inlet makes it to the "brine" outlet?
The lead VC and others are US based, or have operations in the US.
Were they able to segment investments, so that only non-US investor money flowed into the sale? Does having US-based VC organizations participate create a nexus for the SEC to have authority?
It will be interesting to follow the legalities of this, so perhaps others can model the sale and use to successfully float new tokens without scrutiny by the SEC.
Or does the "Duck Rule" not apply to this sale? What say you Gary Gensler?
Master funds are typically not US organizations, and they are also accredited investors. There is no need to segment non-US money. Organizations typically do investor quality tests compliant with US exemptions even if they exclude US investors and also file Regulation D exemption notices.
Here is a quick google search for "Solana Reg D" showing the one from 2018
> It will be interesting to follow the legalities of this, so perhaps others can model the sale and use to successfully float new tokens without scrutiny by the SEC.
This has never been an issue. The only issue the SEC has ever had was with token transactions that did not file any regulatory exemption and sold to unaccredited investors. Many people want clarity about the ability to still do that.
Finally, the SEC regulates transactions not assets. The irony is that some transactions create perpetual securities where all transactions of that type of asset is always a securities transaction to the point where the distinction is not useful. But this is important to understand when you are trying to do a securities transaction for something that is not intended to be a security and how the SEC will react. Being deemed a perpetual security is untenable for crypto assets because there had not been liquid places to trade crypto securities and every centralized user needs to be a registered broker dealer (lol). A transaction itself can be a securities transaction while the ensuing asset is not. The SEC has never had an issue with that reality and hasn't penalized anyone for this kind of conversion.
There's been an argument that schemes relying on backpropagation can't provide insight into biological neural systems, but this argument is weakened by the existence of predictive coding equivalents.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_salt