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

SEC Emergency Action Halts PlexCoin ICO

sec.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 142 posts

Re: SEC Emergency Action Halts PlexCoin ICO

#91

Post by Erlich_Bachman »

Frogolocalypse wrote: post #86
Erlich_Bachman wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This kind of says more about your ability to judge businesses (and specifically ICOs). Not a big surprise, considering that judging businesses and valuating them is a a profession in itself, and it takes people many years to become proficient in it. If you cannot get even a glimpse from this webpage, that this specific ICO is likely a scam, you should not invest in ICOs. You will likely not be able to tell which ones…

No it isn't. You can create an ICO with a github account and dodgy php. To create a company and list it, it is a wee bit more complex.

You don't have to list it in order to scam people with it. They can buy stocks even in non-listed companies. At least not listed on major exchanges. While it might be easier to make a compelling ICO, registering a scammy company is also relatively easy (1k-2k USD). Or perhaps a bit more if you want to come up with some questionable tech and defraud some VCs with experience. It has been done, it is still being done. Up to this point it has been somewhat harder to get away with it though. Now hopefully it will be harder to get away with a scam ICO too.

The point is, if you are out there trying to invest your money, and you don't have any idea about how to judge people, how to judge business models, how to judge the underlying tech - you will loose money. Whether it's an ICO or a regular company selling it's equity using traditional methods.

Re: SEC Emergency Action Halts PlexCoin ICO

#92

Post by cableshaft »

cwperkins wrote: post #69
modeless wrote: post #49

People might not be so eager to dump money into these scam investments if the government hadn't strangled legal and regulated equity crowdfunding. The SEC needs to look at ways to allow people to invest in legitimate opportunities, not just shut down scams. The JOBS act has been a bust in this regard as far as I can see.

There's pretty sound reasons why non-accredited investors can only invest in public tradable assets. Accredited investors can get into non-public companies if they earn a high enough income such that they can take that kind of volatility. For students fresh out of college that should focus on saving, it is not a great idea to throw those savings into non-public startups. It sure sounds tempting, but many times over h…

People should be allowed to make risky investments if they want, especially if they keep that risk to a small percentage of their portfolio. Besides, the lotto and casinos exist and are still allowed in most places, which is basically what you're leaving these people to do (and what I've seen many younger people waste their money instead).

Isn't it this very website where people over and over again say that the best time to take a risk is when you're young, anyway, and don't have any responsibilities?

There's a difference between risky investments and outright scams, though, and I'm fine if the government steps in and stops the scams, although I worry that they'll start seeing every single ICO as a scam and want to stop all of them (to be fair, it almost seems like they all are right now to me as well).

That's one of the nice things about the rise of cryptocurrencies, actually, is it's allowed younger people to make bets that have wildly paid off for them, that would otherwise not been available to them. It was risky as hell for sure, but for those people that only put in what they could afford to lose, it's outperformed every other investment by many many times this past year.

Re: SEC Emergency Action Halts PlexCoin ICO

#93

Post by hamstercat »

The AMF had already found him guilty of the same and barred him from soliciting, directly or indirectly, investors for PlexCoin [0]. It's not the first time he gets in trouble, he had a lending "company" that was investigated and was barred from participating anymore [1]. All links in French sorry.

[0]: https://lautorite.qc.ca/grand-public/salle-de-presse/actuali... [1]: https://lautorite.qc.ca/grand-public/salle-de-presse/actuali...

Re: SEC Emergency Action Halts PlexCoin ICO

#94

Post by vkou »

cableshaft wrote: post #92
cwperkins wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's pretty sound reasons why non-accredited investors can only invest in public tradable assets. Accredited investors can get into non-public companies if they earn a high enough income such that they can take that kind of volatility. For students fresh out of college that should focus on saving, it is not a great idea to throw those savings into non-public startups. It sure sounds tempting, but many times over h…

People should be allowed to make risky investments if they want, especially if they keep that risk to a small percentage of their portfolio. Besides, the lotto and casinos exist and are still allowed in most places, which is basically what you're leaving these people to do (and what I've seen many younger people waste their money instead). Isn't it this very website where people over and over again say that the best…

People can already make a risky investment, by just buying public stock on the public markets.

Re: SEC Emergency Action Halts PlexCoin ICO

#95

Post by vkou »

jsloss wrote: post #74
berberous wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many reasons. Here's a couple I can think of off the top of my head: 1) VC money comes with strings, and founders don't like to have the sword of Damocles hanging over their heads. (Although I think those founders are misguided, as I think most companies benefit from oversight). 2) ICO money is cheaper and plentiful. If it's available, why not take it? This is especially problematic when you have multiple companies p…

Totally agree. The liquidity that ICO's bring to founding teams is a huge plus. It's going to better incentivize smart people to work on big, interesting projects. And get paid well to do so.

Wouldn't it also incentivize talent-less frauds to work on big-sounding projects?

Given the huge problems with current ICOs (Outright scams, or simply terrible investments), it seems that being smart or talented are not the qualities ICO 'investors' are looking for. I think the zeitgeist is that they just want quick pump & dumps.

Re: SEC Emergency Action Halts PlexCoin ICO

#96

Post by hectorr1 »

gruez wrote: post #17

if the company's in quebec, how were they able to freeze their assets? did the company have exchange accounts in US? does the SEC have some sort of agreement with the canadians?

The SEC has global reach, and most regulatory authorities follow their lead. If you touch Americans in any way, shape, or form, they will find a way to get you.

Re: SEC Emergency Action Halts PlexCoin ICO

#98

Post by finkin1 »

quirkot wrote: post #45
finkin1 wrote: post #8

> PlexCorps marketed and sold securities called PlexCoin on the internet to investors in the U.S. and elsewhere, claiming that investments in PlexCoin would yield a 1,354 percent profit in less than 29 days. Is this claim the crux of the securities violation?

It's effectively putting knowingly false information in your prospectus. I think that it is the crux, but IANAL

Right, I get that, but it seems like that statement is the only reason the SEC is halting the ICO. Seems like an incredibly idiotic statement to be making when selling a security. Would the ICO have gone off fine if they hadn't made such a ridiculous statement? I guess it could be argued without such a statement they wouldn't have raised as much money, but my guess is that they could had just hedged the statement to comply with securities laws. Seems like an incredibly dumb oversight, and anyone who knows about securities would have been able to see how dumb and risky making a statement like that is.

Re: SEC Emergency Action Halts PlexCoin ICO

#99

Post by aeorgnoieang »

vkou wrote: post #94
cableshaft wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People should be allowed to make risky investments if they want, especially if they keep that risk to a small percentage of their portfolio. Besides, the lotto and casinos exist and are still allowed in most places, which is basically what you're leaving these people to do (and what I've seen many younger people waste their money instead). Isn't it this very website where people over and over again say that the best…

People can already make a risky investment, by just buying public stock on the public markets.

So there's no reason why they shouldn't be able to make other risky investments, right?

Re: SEC Emergency Action Halts PlexCoin ICO

#100

Post by brudgers »

Animats wrote: post #51

This is a typical SEC action against a get-rich-quick Ponzi-type scheme. Read the SEC's note on Ponzi schemes.[1] The original Charles Ponzi only promised a 50% return in 90 days. Bernie Madoff promised about 10-15% a year. This "ICO" promised 1300% in 30 days. [1] https://www.sec.gov/fast-answers/answersponzihtm.html

If you can get in early and you recognize it for what it is, a Ponzi scheme can be just another rational investment.

Madoff's clients made good returns for a long time. From the perspective of each long term individual investor, the problem was that they did not fold and walk away from the table with their winnings after a few years. The scheme would have survived a few of those, and maybe some investors did.

None of which is to imply that I think Ponzi schemes should be legal. I'm not a libertarian.

Post reply on HN