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

SEC Charges Kik With Conducting $100M Unregistered ICO

sec.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 343 posts

Re: SEC Charges Kik With Conducting $100M Unregistered ICO

#51

Post by danmaz74 »

dsfyu404ed wrote: post #35
andrewmutz wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The continuous pump-and-dump activity that you see in the crypto space is a clear demonstration that they should be regulated by the SEC. Regulation is unpopular among the people inside the regulated industry, but it protects society as a whole.

>but it protects society as a whole. Regulations may be a net positive overall but there are plenty of examples of bad regulation. The general case does not necessarily apply to any one case and even if it does there's still plenty of room to screw up the implementation. You can't just hand wave and say "well regulation is generally good so therefore this specific regulation must also be good". That's the same flawed…

Not the op, but: it's not that every piece of regulation is great, but regulation as a whole protects society as a whole

Re: SEC Charges Kik With Conducting $100M Unregistered ICO

#52

Post by duxup »

mindcandy wrote: post #24

Note that Kik has expressly stated that they have really wanted this case to go to court for some time now. They strongly believe that the SEC guidance so far has been vague and non-committal to the point of becoming damaging. They believe they have a case that Kin is not a security and that the Howey Test is being mis-applied to many cryptos. By going through with the suit they hope to fast-forward more concrete gui…

Doesn't everyone publicly look forward to proving their case in court when the inevitable legal battle is obvious?

Not many folks say "Oh man I don't want the SEC to sue me, I'm gonna get creamed in court!"

Re: SEC Charges Kik With Conducting $100M Unregistered ICO

#53

Post by arbol »

behringer wrote: post #49
erikpukinskis wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not all ICOs are scams. In some cases people have taken the time to work out a set of incentives that allows a market that previously needed to be operated by a corporate entity to be operated without central control. Such an incentive scheme has intrinsic value equivalent to the coordinating body it replaces. An ICO for such a scheme is not necessarily a scam. Certainly the vast majority of ICOs are scams, but not a…

Name one

Augur

Re: SEC Charges Kik With Conducting $100M Unregistered ICO

#54

Post by nostrademons »

seibelj wrote: post #15
stingraycharles wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Yet Bitcoin and Ethereum are not considered securities by the SEC. Why is that ?

Bitcoin and Ethereum do not pass the Howey Test because they are "sufficiently decentralized", primarily because no single enterprise is responsible for developing it. But there is no framework on how exactly one becomes sufficiently decentralized, and because Ethereum had an ICO and is not a security, we know there is a way to do an ICO without needing to be registered. Unfortunately the current regulatory framework…

ETH was specifically called out by one of the SEC guidance letters as something that was a security at the time of its issuance but is no longer a security because material facts pertinent to the Howey Test have changed (notably, they delivered on the product, ETH now has significant use-value apart from speculative purposes, and development & decision-making are decentralized).

That something could move from "security" to "not a security" in 3 years while preserving the ownership interests of stakeholders should probably tell you that crypto is something new, though, and that existing legal frameworks don't properly capture how it behaves.

Re: SEC Charges Kik With Conducting $100M Unregistered ICO

#55

Post by bredren »

rococode wrote: post #9
nyx_ wrote: post #2

"The complaint further alleges that Kik marketed the Kin tokens as an investment opportunity. Kik allegedly told investors that rising demand would drive up the value of Kin, and that Kik would undertake crucial work to spur that demand, including by incorporating the tokens into its messaging app, creating a new Kin transaction service, and building a system to reward other companies that adopt Kin. At the time Kik…

People lower their shields when scammy stuff comes from something they trust. Kik has been around for 8 years and was pretty popular at one point, so its long-time users wouldn't notice how much it seems like a desperate moneygrab.

One is the key aspects of ICO pumping was reputation building. So, launching a currency by leveraging a trusted or recognizable name lends credibility to the extent unsophisticated people might buy and assume “they know what they’re doing.”

Re: SEC Charges Kik With Conducting $100M Unregistered ICO

#56

Post by gowld »

seibelj wrote: post #15
stingraycharles wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Yet Bitcoin and Ethereum are not considered securities by the SEC. Why is that ?

Bitcoin and Ethereum do not pass the Howey Test because they are "sufficiently decentralized", primarily because no single enterprise is responsible for developing it. But there is no framework on how exactly one becomes sufficiently decentralized, and because Ethereum had an ICO and is not a security, we know there is a way to do an ICO without needing to be registered. Unfortunately the current regulatory framework…

Eth was a security was it stopped being a security before SEC took action, so there's nothing for SEC to do.now.

Re: SEC Charges Kik With Conducting $100M Unregistered ICO

#57

Post by chews »

behringer wrote: post #49
erikpukinskis wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not all ICOs are scams. In some cases people have taken the time to work out a set of incentives that allows a market that previously needed to be operated by a corporate entity to be operated without central control. Such an incentive scheme has intrinsic value equivalent to the coordinating body it replaces. An ICO for such a scheme is not necessarily a scam. Certainly the vast majority of ICOs are scams, but not a…

Name one

Orchid

Re: SEC Charges Kik With Conducting $100M Unregistered ICO

#58

Post by miohtama »

behringer wrote: post #49
erikpukinskis wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not all ICOs are scams. In some cases people have taken the time to work out a set of incentives that allows a market that previously needed to be operated by a corporate entity to be operated without central control. Such an incentive scheme has intrinsic value equivalent to the coordinating body it replaces. An ICO for such a scheme is not necessarily a scam. Certainly the vast majority of ICOs are scams, but not a…

Name one

Ethereum. Also: Stellar.

Or anything where money is raised for a non-profit organization. Preferably as donations. More transparent this organization the better. Non-profit nature is very good in guarding against my expectation of profit by the work of an issuer.

Post reply on HN