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

Our path to listing SEC-regulated crypto securities

blog.coinbase.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 156 posts

Re: Our path to listing SEC-regulated crypto securities

#11

Post by aphextron »

hapnin wrote: post #8
aphextron wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>we can go back to building valuable companies Like what? >with a whole new way of funding them. What's wrong with US Dollars?

Binance made more money than Deutsche Bank last year. They funded growth with an ICO. > What's wrong with US Dollars? It's not a good store of value over the long haul: https://visual.ly/community/infographic/economy/purchasing-p...

>”It's not a good store of value over the long haul”

Well sure, but no one is storing their wealth in USD. You use it to purchase assets. What store of value can you purchase with BTC without first converting to USD?

>”Binance made more money than Deutsche Bank last year. They funded growth with an ICO.”

Concentrated more wealth, you mean. What, exactly, did they contribute to the economy? At the very least, banks provide liquidity. The furthest I can gather of any crypto company mission is “make money”.

Re: Our path to listing SEC-regulated crypto securities

#13

Post by gomox »

aphextron wrote: post #11
hapnin wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Binance made more money than Deutsche Bank last year. They funded growth with an ICO. > What's wrong with US Dollars? It's not a good store of value over the long haul: https://visual.ly/community/infographic/economy/purchasing-p...

>”It's not a good store of value over the long haul” Well sure, but no one is storing their wealth in USD. You use it to purchase assets. What store of value can you purchase with BTC without first converting to USD? >”Binance made more money than Deutsche Bank last year. They funded growth with an ICO.” Concentrated more wealth, you mean. What, exactly, did they contribute to the economy? At the very least, banks pr…

Soon enough, potentially, tokenized securities that represent shares of anything you can think of.

Re: Our path to listing SEC-regulated crypto securities

#16

Post by pwaai »

gomox wrote: post #4

This a great step in the right direction for the post-ICO-craze phase. Once we are over the bullshit utility tokens we can go back to building valuable companies with a whole new way of funding them.

Except the 'new paradigm' still requires fiat banking and all of the same security laws you will expect.

I think when SEC declares Ethereum as security by end of this year, it will be the end of ICO.

Re: Our path to listing SEC-regulated crypto securities

#18

Post by icothrow3 »

wmf wrote: post #15

This sounds great until people realize that only qualified investors will be allowed to trade security tokens.

Social network Gab is attempting to issue security tokens [1] under Regulation A+, which allows the general public to invest. The SEC hasn't approved it yet.

[1] https://www.startengine.com/gab-select

Re: Our path to listing SEC-regulated crypto securities

#19

Post by ISL »

hendzen wrote: post #10

If all of AAPL stock is tokenized, and someone hacks a custodian of say 30% of AAPL, is the hacker now owner of 30% of AAPL?

The hacker would suddenly discover the various international justice systems.

The tokens would be tainted, unspendable, and worthless.

A wild guess at the potential reward for unmasking the hacker? ($950B * 0.3 * 0.001 --> ~300 M USD).

After the first such hack, companies might add a clause to the bylaws enabling the company to re-issue stock to the aggrieved party, restoring balance to the universe.

Re: Our path to listing SEC-regulated crypto securities

#20

Post by ISL »

ISL wrote: post #19
hendzen wrote: post #10

If all of AAPL stock is tokenized, and someone hacks a custodian of say 30% of AAPL, is the hacker now owner of 30% of AAPL?

The hacker would suddenly discover the various international justice systems. The tokens would be tainted, unspendable, and worthless. A wild guess at the potential reward for unmasking the hacker? ($950B * 0.3 * 0.001 --> ~300 M USD). After the first such hack, companies might add a clause to the bylaws enabling the company to re-issue stock to the aggrieved party, restoring balance to the universe.

A double-spend attack is more subtle, as the correct resolution is less clear. The law is pretty good at handling theft and fraud, though, so I suspect a reasonable solution can be worked out in short order.
Post reply on HN