221–230 of 343 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Name one
The truth is there are A LOT of ICOs which are actually developing or have developed some good solutions to certain problems. Yes there are a lot more scams than good projects, but just dismissing the whole field because of those is plain dumb.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A few things to clarify: The SEC's position is that tokens are "securities" under the Securities Act and the Securities Act says that all securities must be registered if they're going to be sold to the public. Since the SEC views the tokens as securities (no different from company stock), and securities must be registered to be sold to the public, then (according to the SEC) an ICO of an unregistered token violates…
Thanks. So since cryptocurrencies aren't specifically listed but just fall under "investment contracts," and investment contracts have to pass Howey to be considered securities, doesn't that mean that cryptocurrencies which fail a Howey test are in the clear? (I guess the SEC could claim they count as "any interest or instrument commonly known as a security" on the grounds that the SEC themselves consider them securi…
Correct. Though I get the impression you think most tokens fail Howey and I’m not sure that’s the case. In SEC v Lauer the court found a “common enterprise” where there was only one investor so the court’s application of the Howey test isn’t cut and dry but there’s an expectation the court will apply it to the specific circumstances at issue.
This was inevitable. As I said two years ago[1], just listen to Kik's own words: "When we looked at raising another round [of VC funding], we asked ourselves how do we answer the question about how we will become a profitable business [...] We didn’t have an answer we really believed." ... so instead they decided to raise money from unsophisticated investors in an unregulated market, where nobody asks such inconvenie…
The regulations indeed exist because fraud in this vein was prevalent and it made it difficult to compete if you weren't defrauding investors.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I use it as a general e-friends chat service. It doesn't require giving your address book or phone number like WhatsApp (and presumably doesn't track you like all Facebook products do). It gives you anonymity, unlike regular texting. It doesn't have terrible Microsoft-UX like Skype. It does one thing and does it well.
Thank you for your response! I've honestly never even installed it, maybe I should check it out.
I'm not sure what about all of that makes them seem trustworthy. I guess they haven't been caught selling user data - but given that they allegedly committed fraud to keep the company afloat, I don't know why you would trust them not to.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Not sure how non-profits work in USA but in UK whilst charities can't give profits they can give massive wages/bonuses to people through payroll. You can start a charity, take donations, pay yourself a huge bonus and then declare the charity insolvent -- "no profit made, all available funds used for charitable purposes".
This was inevitable. As I said two years ago[1], just listen to Kik's own words: "When we looked at raising another round [of VC funding], we asked ourselves how do we answer the question about how we will become a profitable business [...] We didn’t have an answer we really believed." ... so instead they decided to raise money from unsophisticated investors in an unregulated market, where nobody asks such inconvenie…
A refreshing perspective compared to the usual HN "it's your fault (& no one else's) that you got defrauded on Kickstarter" position.
It is also the scammers fault for scamming, and they face their own set of consequences.
I also think there is this bizarre double talk on HN where people say sophisticated investor status shouldn't be a thing while also condemning ICOs, which is exactly what happens when sophisticated investor status isn't a thing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thanks. So since cryptocurrencies aren't specifically listed but just fall under "investment contracts," and investment contracts have to pass Howey to be considered securities, doesn't that mean that cryptocurrencies which fail a Howey test are in the clear? (I guess the SEC could claim they count as "any interest or instrument commonly known as a security" on the grounds that the SEC themselves consider them securi…
> doesn't that mean that cryptocurrencies which fail a Howey test are in the clear? Correct. Though I get the impression you think most tokens fail Howey and I’m not sure that’s the case. In SEC v Lauer the court found a “common enterprise” where there was only one investor so the court’s application of the Howey test isn’t cut and dry but there’s an expectation the court will apply it to the specific circumstances a…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
> Kik is different in that they have deep pockets, strong legal counsel, and a product that's been out there for 8 years. Except they don't. The only money they have is from an unregistered sale of securities which was only undertaken because they HAD NO MONEY. Their product costs more to run than it makes, and is irrelevant to the SEC lawsuit.
That doesn't really sound like a security to me...
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…
This was my issue at the time too.. It was a horribly vague situation. The SEC usually acts but the penalties are usually for 1/100th of the profits. If Kik loses here they're just going to make them pay $1M 'penalty' and move on.