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

SEC tightens the noose on ICO-funded startups

decryptmedia.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 164 posts

Re: SEC tightens the noose on ICO-funded startups

#91

Post by jimmaswell »

dabockster wrote: post #88
147 wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're saying if somebody is an engineer at a company that helps launches ICOs they should be worried?

Ethics aside, yeah they should be worried. The "I was only following orders" claim usually only applies when those orders were lawful.

So every single employee of a corporation is expected to triple check that everything they're told to do is legally bulletproof, having to duplicate the work of the entire legal department? That's ridiculous, especially with how many laws and regulations are unpredictable, unexpected, unintuitive, hard to understand, etc.

Re: SEC tightens the noose on ICO-funded startups

#92

Post by CryptoPunk »

gamblor956 wrote: post #79
CryptoPunk wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The SEC doesn't create law. Courts do. It can claim anything it wants, but until its argument is tested by a court, it's not law. There continue to be strong legal arguments for utility tokens not being securities: https://www.coinbase.com/legal/securities-law-framework.pdf This attitude of deferring to regulatory agencies, which have their own set of institutional biases, on the question of the applicability of secu…

Courts don't create the law, they interpret it (...except in India, where the Supreme Court actually does make laws). The Legislature writes the law. A security doesn't require a common enterprise, it simply requires that one thing represents an interest in something else. The underlying asset is usually financial or intangible in nature, but that isn't required. There are more specific rules and exceptions, but thos…

Courts create common law, which determines how statutory laws are interpreted.

>>A security doesn't require a common enterprise, it simply requires that one thing represents an interest in something else.

Investment into a common enterprise is the second prong of the Howey Test.

Re: SEC tightens the noose on ICO-funded startups

#93

Post by CryptoPunk »

abugheratwork wrote: post #69
CryptoPunk wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The SEC doesn't create law. Courts do. It can claim anything it wants, but until its argument is tested by a court, it's not law. There continue to be strong legal arguments for utility tokens not being securities: https://www.coinbase.com/legal/securities-law-framework.pdf This attitude of deferring to regulatory agencies, which have their own set of institutional biases, on the question of the applicability of secu…

"This attitude of deferring to regulatory agencies ... is dangerous to liberty and innovation." I'm just checking that that's really what you meant to say.

The ellipses replace pretty important context.

Re: SEC tightens the noose on ICO-funded startups

#94

Post by jimmaswell »

CryptoPunk wrote: post #52

The laws need to change. The SEC should only get involved when someone defrauds another party through misrepresentation. Mandatory disclosure, registration, and KYC requirements are all infringements on the right to privacy and free contract. That the poorest households spend 9% of their income on state-run lotteries, yet people can't try their hand at investing their own money in businesses/projects that haven't bee…

Exactly this. Half of the regulations the SEC enforces look more to me like nothing but revenue generation and entrenching existing players. Day trading rules are a flagrant example - only rich people are allowed to buy stocks and sell them the same day, not proles.

Re: SEC tightens the noose on ICO-funded startups

#95

Post by jimmaswell »

abugheratwork wrote: post #69
CryptoPunk wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The SEC doesn't create law. Courts do. It can claim anything it wants, but until its argument is tested by a court, it's not law. There continue to be strong legal arguments for utility tokens not being securities: https://www.coinbase.com/legal/securities-law-framework.pdf This attitude of deferring to regulatory agencies, which have their own set of institutional biases, on the question of the applicability of secu…

"This attitude of deferring to regulatory agencies ... is dangerous to liberty and innovation." I'm just checking that that's really what you meant to say.

Sounds good to me.

Re: SEC tightens the noose on ICO-funded startups

#96

Post by hndamien »

lawn wrote: post #40
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> you can trade them 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, from anywhere in the world with an internet connection, in any currency (theoretically) and on no fixed exchange This describes securities, generally. You and I can transact to trade shares of Uber in renminbi on a Saturday. We can transact, over the counter and using a broker, to trade shares of Apple in Canadian dollars the following day. The Apple trade would nee…

The obvious difference is transactions without a third party. You can also verify ICO token integrity on the blockchain yourself (via open source apps).

And you can maintain custody, so somebody isn't loaning out your shares.

Re: SEC tightens the noose on ICO-funded startups

#97

Post by jimmaswell »

I never had strong feelings one way or the other on the SEC until recently. Now, from their unjustified behavior due to Elon's tweets (what's more important to our future as a planet, punishing someone for a gray area tweet they could have chosen to go either way on, or letting Elon continue to innovate at full capacity?) to ruining ICOs, I feel like we'd all be better off if the SEC was reduced by at least a factor of half along with the number of regulations they enforce.

Re: SEC tightens the noose on ICO-funded startups

#98

Post by hndamien »

thinkmassive wrote: post #23
will_brown wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the issue of what constitutes a security is very well defined in the US...it’s just no one has framed their token in such a way it’s not a security (despite all the claims to the contrary) and otherwise the ICOs have not complied with securities laws because...well move fast break things. I’m not sure why a company doesn’t just come out and do an ICO: a) with a token that’s not a security or b) a token that i…

They have, see https://coinlist.co/

If your innovation requires a new monetary system, it is probably a Ponzi.

Re: SEC tightens the noose on ICO-funded startups

#99

Post by wmf »

andreygrehov wrote: post #81
anonymous5133 wrote: post #39

If you have a ICO startup it would be pretty stupid to be in the USA.

Why? Just follow the law. You can easily launch a Reg D 506(c) offering.

If you "just" use Reg D, then you can't take money from non-accredited suckers so you'll raise far less money and your security token can't trade on any exchange (yet).
Post reply on HN