21–30 of 128 posts
I have proposed one possible solution to this problem here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16208325
For real though...when will we stop using crypto to refer to cryptocurrencies? Crypto is short for one thing and it's cryptography.
I imagine this is one of the ways in which language evolves, for better or for worse.
For real though...when will we stop using crypto to refer to cryptocurrencies? Crypto is short for one thing and it's cryptography.
This sentiment comes up in almost every crypto thread and I think it's a bit misguided. It's referred to as crypto because...that's how people know it. Google trends explains my point better than I ever could. https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%205-y&q=...
(Perhaps linguistic coherence is more than we should expect from the cryptocurrency community, given that they have already inflicted upon themselves the utterly bizarre usage of "blockchain" as a mass noun.)
Separating bad actors and their crypto from good actors and their crypto is where were headed next. Lessons in due diligence apply to crypto just as with any other investment vehicle but it seems many have missed this. The crypto space is being refined, which is a good thing.
Yes, I am confident that there are as many good actors in cryptocurrencies as there are in any other multi-level marketing scheme.
Hopefully a wake up call.. but probably won't be.
There will always be losers and for good reason. ROFL
I will repeat myself from another ICO thread last week: you cannot have investment vehicles where commiting fraud results in no punishment. It simply doesn't work. Until someone figures out a way to even somewhat integrate ICOs into the existing legal system, this will keep happening. I have proposed one possible solution to this problem here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16208325
They're already integrated into the legal system. What new laws are needed?
Separating bad actors and their crypto from good actors and their crypto is where were headed next. Lessons in due diligence apply to crypto just as with any other investment vehicle but it seems many have missed this. The crypto space is being refined, which is a good thing.
So then the merit of a coin will be 'backed' by business fundamentals, i.e. is the business any good? So think of crypto-coins as shares, not this magic bean currency and everyone is a winner.
I will repeat myself from another ICO thread last week: you cannot have investment vehicles where commiting fraud results in no punishment. It simply doesn't work. Until someone figures out a way to even somewhat integrate ICOs into the existing legal system, this will keep happening. I have proposed one possible solution to this problem here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16208325
> Until someone figures out a way to even somewhat integrate ICOs into the existing legal system, this will keep happening. They're already integrated into the legal system. What new laws are needed?
I will repeat myself from another ICO thread last week: you cannot have investment vehicles where commiting fraud results in no punishment. It simply doesn't work. Until someone figures out a way to even somewhat integrate ICOs into the existing legal system, this will keep happening. I have proposed one possible solution to this problem here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16208325
> Until someone figures out a way to even somewhat integrate ICOs into the existing legal system, this will keep happening. They're already integrated into the legal system. What new laws are needed?
Considering that this is a mechanism that is predominantly used to fund projects or companies anyway, I don't think that's an irrational requirement.