Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

SEC Issues Report Concluding DAO Tokens, a Digital Asset, Were Securities

sec.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

331–340 of 360 posts

Re: SEC Issues Report Concluding DAO Tokens, a Digital Asset, Were Securities

#331

Post by modeless »

joshuaxls wrote: post #314
DennisP wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So I see CoinList uses AngelList, which I think verifies accreditation via financial accounts. From what I've read, the SEC doesn't mandate any particular method to verify net worth. In this space, wouldn't it make sense to accept a signature proving ownership of a large ETH balance?

Yes, we accept cryptographic proof of ownership for accreditation purposes.

How? On angel.co's accreditation form I only see a place to upload a single file containing one bank/brokerage statement. It says nothing about cryptographic proof of ownership, or even about providing multiple documents.

Re: SEC Issues Report Concluding DAO Tokens, a Digital Asset, Were Securities

#332

Post by DennisP »

joosters wrote: post #295
DennisP wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The most serious effort I've seen had a geoblocked website that worked with a Chrome plugin. You could get around it, without even using a proxy, but only if you could understand the smart contract code and figure out how to prepare the data it required. To my way of thinking, if you're sophisticated enough to do that, you're sophisticated enough in blockchain matters to make your own investment decisions.

It's a common fallacy that people think "I'm good at X, so I must also be good at Y" It seems to afflict techies the most, somehow we think just because we can understand computers, we must therefore be skilled in other domains too, like investments...

I'm not claiming that being good at computers means I must be good at investing.

I'm claiming that if I understand smart contract code, I'm good at evaluating a white paper's technical claims about a project being built with smart contract code.

Also I'm claiming this makes me better prepared to invest in these projects than, say, a cardiologist. But the SEC would be perfectly happy to let the cardiologist invest, while restricting the programmer who actually understands the industry.

Re: SEC Issues Report Concluding DAO Tokens, a Digital Asset, Were Securities

#333

Post by mstodd »

siliconviking wrote: post #308
Cshelton wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The regulations put in place by the SEC are not to help companies, but to protect U.S. citizens from being scammed all the time. Sure, the wild west is fun, but if you are in an economic ecosystem where a large percentage is comprised of scammers/fraudulent companies, then it will be detrimental to long term success.

The degree to which most people in here have faith in our institutions bothers me. Detrimental to long term success -- how do you know? I am inclined to believe the opposite.

Same here. People need to pick up a basic Economics book. The government is not here to protect people, it's here to give people of influence special privileges.

People should be able to take risks, it's what life is all about. People should also be able to develop their own private institutions to handle that risk. The government is impossible to complete with. If people are unhappy about being scammed in the market, that should be an opportunity for an entrepreneur to come in an help people not get scammed. The government prevents this

Re: SEC Issues Report Concluding DAO Tokens, a Digital Asset, Were Securities

#334

Post by mstodd »

Cshelton wrote: post #69
Jabanga wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>but to protect U.S. citizens from being scammed all the time. US citizens shouldn't be treated like children that need to protected from their own stupidity.

Very smart people are scammed and conned all the time.

you say scammed, I'd say they're making risky purchases. People should be allowed to take risks

Re: SEC Issues Report Concluding DAO Tokens, a Digital Asset, Were Securities

#335

Post by runeks »

will_brown wrote: post #330
runeks wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As far as I can see from observing the market, the expectation that literally any token will rise in price is evidenced in the market. If you doubt this just go to https://coinmarketcap.com/all/views/all/ which lists over 1000 different tokens, the first 300 of which have a market cap of over one million USD (e.g. HTMLCOIN). In other words, tokens do tend to increase in price after their launch, but only because peop…

Housing prices weren't increasing because people expected the prices would increase...home prices were increasing because the supply of money/loans for houses exponentially increased. In other words NINJAs (no income, no job applications) were being rubber stamped for million dollar plus homes with $0 down and 103% financing. And so prices continued to go up because the next NINJA would be approved to buy yesterday's…

> Housing prices weren't increasing because people expected the prices would increase...home prices were increasing because the supply of money/loans for houses exponentially increased.

Why would the supply of money/loans increase unless people were taking out loans to buy houses more than usual, and why would they do that unless they expected the price to increase? The increase in supply of loans happened because people bought houses expecting a profit. So increase in credit supply is a secondary effect that occurs when people are more willing than usual to buy houses on credit. And people are willing to this when they expect a profit.

Re: SEC Issues Report Concluding DAO Tokens, a Digital Asset, Were Securities

#336

Post by [deleted] »

Jabanga wrote: post #51
dmitrygr wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same reason SEC exists. Because many people are easy to manipulate, and plenty of malicious people out there will convince (not force) them to invest in their ICO, etc.

Then we should limit who people can vote for, since voters are so easy to manipulate into voting against their own interests. The basic principles of liberal democracy assume that a person has an absolute right to make decisions for their own life. These kinds of restrictions are unconscionable restrictions on the right of free people to their personal autonomy.

[deleted]

Re: SEC Issues Report Concluding DAO Tokens, a Digital Asset, Were Securities

#337

Post by qznc »

joeyspn wrote: post #2

BOOM! the game just changed... > In light of the facts and circumstances, the agency has decided not to bring charges in this instance, or make findings of violations in the Report, but rather to caution the industry and market participants: the federal securities laws apply to those who offer and sell securities in the United States, regardless whether the issuing entity is a traditional company or a decentralized a…

The price of ETH and various ICO was not affected at all. Most ETH volume is in Asia, so maybe they just don't care.

Re: SEC Issues Report Concluding DAO Tokens, a Digital Asset, Were Securities

#338

Post by xorcist »

darawk wrote: post #130
xorcist wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How much paid use does Storj or Sia have? Very few, if any, have bought into these tokens to use the underlying service. It's mostly "expectations of future profit", especially considering many of these tokens is described as having no use. The idea seems to be that useless tokens can not be considered securities, which seems as likely as a cop must answer truthfully if he is a cop.

Ya, I would expect the SEC to take that position. But it seems like a subtle legal question, that has the potential to turn all kinds of clearly non-security products into 'securities' in the eyes of the law. Does standing in line to buy iphones on the day of release so you can sell them on eBay constitute buying a security? What about Air Jordans? Etc...At some point, the definition broadens to any purchase with the…

Sure, but that's (literally) their work to define that boundary, and it is quite clear on which side of the line they intend ICOs to fall.

Those where the outcome is based on the work of others are clearly securities. I would argue the outright useless ones are more a form of gambling (lottery tickets have no other uses and and the outcome can not be controlled) but then there's the element of getting your friends and neighbors in on it that complicates things.

How it's being sold is likely what matters, and the websites can be pretty toned down compared to their forums and Twitter feeds.

Re: SEC Issues Report Concluding DAO Tokens, a Digital Asset, Were Securities

#339

Post by saosebastiao »

DennisP wrote: post #285
KirinDave wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Because an ICO can be created at no cost Except the cost to the participants who later have wasted money because the ICO contract was exploitable... At the current rate major losses are as perceptible as all successes. Maybe the industry needs some externally imposed speed bumps from SOME authority until folks can get their acts in gear?

I doubt the SEC is a good fit for improving smart contract security.

I'd trust the SEC that one other agency capable of doing so. The SEC actually has a ton of technically capable people who understand and audit technology...they do as much for e-brokers, stock exchanges, high frequency traders, etc.

The only other agency capable of doing so would probably stockpile the exploits and use them to surveil the dark web to catch a million drug dealers and an occasional low level disposable terrorist.

Re: SEC Issues Report Concluding DAO Tokens, a Digital Asset, Were Securities

#340

Post by [deleted] »

runeks wrote: post #335
will_brown wrote: post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Housing prices weren't increasing because people expected the prices would increase...home prices were increasing because the supply of money/loans for houses exponentially increased. In other words NINJAs (no income, no job applications) were being rubber stamped for million dollar plus homes with $0 down and 103% financing. And so prices continued to go up because the next NINJA would be approved to buy yesterday's…

> Housing prices weren't increasing because people expected the prices would increase...home prices were increasing because the supply of money/loans for houses exponentially increased. Why would the supply of money/loans increase unless people were taking out loans to buy houses more than usual, and why would they do that unless they expected the price to increase? The increase in supply of loans happened because pe…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN