From: Jeremy Rubin

From: Jeremy Rubin To: "Jeffrey E." <[email protected]> Subject: Re: New Yorker article on insider trading: Date: Sun, 01 Nov 2015 17:07:24 +0000 And it seems in this case the question is not if the information was insider, but if it is prosecutable as such if I understand correctly? @Jeremy Rubin On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 12:06 PM, Jeremy Rubin wrote: Isn't insider information always stolen? @JeremyRubin On Sun, Nov I, 2015 at 11:50 AM, jeffrey E. <[email protected]> wrote: very good, we have to be careful that the info is not stolen info. , ie belongs to the co. etc. otherwise patents etc could be traded . On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 11:31 AM, Jeremy Rubin wrote: httplAiww.newyorker.com/business/currency/making-insider-trading-legal Of course you're probably much more up to date on such pieces than myself, but this seems like an interesting kernel to framework a cryptosystem around. If the item being passed is informations which you always forward through at least a few other people before unlocking the information, and then are able to use that information to trade well (eg, with some probability p of having success based on quality of information), it operates as a probabilistic payment system where you can exchange out of the system by trading stocks in traditional systems (so you *get" a payment some p percent of the time). Thoughts? ®JeremyRubin please note The information contained in this communication is confidential, may be attorney-client privileged, may constitute inside information, and is intended only for the use of the addressee. It is the property of JEE Unauthorized use, disclosure or copying of this communication or any part thereof is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by return e-mail or by e-mail to [email protected], and destroy this communication and all copies thereof, including all attachments. copyright -all rights reserved EFTA00642753 EFTA00642754