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

61–70 of 343 posts

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

#63

Post by draw_down »

erikpukinskis wrote: post #47
LiquidSky wrote: post #29

>scam ICO No need to be redundant.

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…

Not everyone who wants me to play three-card monte is trying to rip me off. But I hope we can agree that three-card monte is a ripoff.

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

#66

Post by village-idiot »

abalone wrote: post #41
seibelj wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ethereum also had an ICO (paid in Bitcoin) and it delivered. Cosmos held an ICO and delivered. Not all ICOs are scams.

They “delivered” only because they sold wheelbarrows to the 49ers. As gold rush history will tell you, most fortunes were made by merchants not miners. Name a non-ICO-infrastructure ICO that isn’t a scam.

Ethereum as infrastructure is also a dicey proposition. It works, slowly, but it doesn’t seem like there’s a lot of demand for “dapps” outside ICO tokens, gambling, and the odd Ponzi scheme. The smart contract revolution at this point is complete vapor ware.

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

#68

Post by djsumdog »

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…

> Who even bought this stuff?

A buddy of mine from my home town called me up and needed a developer to work on his "crypto-currency hedge fund." This guy has always been a bit dodgy on looking for the least amount of resistance to the most money.

I tried tell tell him all the reasons it was a bad idea. He claims he had done all the research (guy is not a programmer, couldn't pass Anatomy I the two times he took it in an attempt to start his career as a radiologist .. for the money -- sure as hell couldn't do the maths).

He told me investments would be a minimum of $250k and he was promising (yes promising) 120% returns. ... I told him he needed to be careful, because with that type of pitch, he would most likely end up in a ditch somewhere two to to the head .. or jail .. and he should hope for jail.

Besides telling him it was a bad idea, I told him he couldn't afford me. He told me he'd pay more than whatever I was making. I told him what I made .. and that I wouldn't take anything in crypto currency. That ended that.

He had several tens of thousands in different crypto currencies (before the BTC bubble broke in 2018). So in response to your question: this kind of person.

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

#69

Post by nostrademons »

duxup wrote: post #52
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!"

A lot of people think it, but if you're thinking it the last thing you want to do is publicize that and invite people (particularly the SEC) to ask "Why don't you want the SEC to sue you?"

A number of smaller ICOs just settled with the SEC and refunded the money to investors when they got a Wells Notice. Those are all the folks who said "Oh man I don't want the SEC to sue me, I'm gonna get creamed in court." Kik is different in that they have deep pockets, strong legal counsel, and a product that's been out there for 8 years.

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

#70

Post by duxup »

nostrademons wrote: post #69
duxup wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!"

A lot of people think it, but if you're thinking it the last thing you want to do is publicize that and invite people (particularly the SEC) to ask "Why don't you want the SEC to sue you?" A number of smaller ICOs just settled with the SEC and refunded the money to investors when they got a Wells Notice. Those are all the folks who said "Oh man I don't want the SEC to sue me, I'm gonna get creamed in court." Kik is d…

Well a messenger app for 8 years, but that's not really what the lawsuit is about.
Post reply on HN