271–280 of 348 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The dentist can weather the poor investment. Knowledge does not make you financially solvent. It just improves your gambling odds as it relates to equity investment.
From my perspective, only letting people who are well off enough to 'weather the loss' seems like something that only exacerbates the wealth gap.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Accredited investor rules was an example of not having a even playing field. The market is not open to everyone which contributes to unfair outcomes. I'd welcome reforms to transparency as well there, as lack of transparency also contributes to unfair outcomes (the company can exploit investors).
Could you be clearer about what you mean by transparency? Do you think private companies should make their financial statements public? Do they need to be audited?
Crypto fans want deregulated finance. Crypto fans get mad when deregulated finance is comically unfair. You really can’t make this up. Embrace this. It’s exactly what crypto is all about.
This is a strawman. It also paints “crypto fans”, as some monolithic group that all think the same way. I am a crypto fan and do not “want deregulated finance”. It is not “exactly what crypto is all about”. I think most in the space would actually like to see more sensible regulation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wonder what your statement would be if a hacker compromised the hot wallet and drained all of the funds?
I would expect them to have insurance against theft like everywhere else I store money.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think trading on the basis of private information at the expense of other shareholders without the same information is the problem. I'm less concerned about the specifics of filing requirements, and more concerned about information asymmetry regardless of auditing/reporting obligations. I'm not sure I know enough to recommend a specific policy here, my original comment was just what I believe to be some of the flaw…
Okay, fair enough! However, reporting requirements and auditing are all about making sure everyone has access to the same, accurate information about a company's financial situation. Insiders will learn about changes in a company's finances before outsiders. If they can disclose this to some investors but not others, or even disclose it to some investors first, then that increases information asymmetry. But this does…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
From my perspective, only letting people who are well off enough to 'weather the loss' seems like something that only exacerbates the wealth gap.
Super off topic, but the wealth gap is exacerbated by not taxing the wealthiest at a high enough rate, not regulations against capital market participation in highly speculative ventures. To argue that accredited investor regulations are the problem is no different than arguing for lottery tickets or penny stocks as an investment strategy for low income citizens.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I think this is true, but beside the point. I think you missed my point. To reiterate: the fact that people believe that it's not true is, ironically, a convincing justification for the accredited investor rule. I'm pointing out the irony, not defending the rule per se . > If you want to have an even playing field for investing, every barrier is an obstacle. This clearly isn't true. First, it's sort of prime facie…
I agree that markets are not natural and don't happen magically without human oversight and rules. But generally we want those systems to increase participation in the market. The criteria of net worth as a obstacle to market participation seems pretty indefensible here. It is hard for someone to commit to changing their net worth in the same way that a company can decide to become public, or that a wealthy person ca…
>> I think you missed my point. To reiterate: the fact that people believe that it's not true is, ironically, a convincing justification for the accredited investor rule. I'm pointing out the irony, not defending the rule per se.
and
>>> I'm not even an avid fan of the accredited investor rule.
So, as I've stated in every single post in this thread, I'm not defending the accredited investor rule. Cool?
The justification for the accredited investor rule is "people are idiots". Again, not even that rich = less of an idiot. The premise of the rule is that rich people can afford to be bamboozled by scams and shitty investments... er, I mean, take on "higher risk investment opportunities".
I find that justification uncompelling on face.
But then people come along and complain "I can't use prosper.com to make unsecured personal loans to randos for an expected return of 5.7% per annum on loans with 15%-20% APY during a time when every other asset class out-performed and with the front end of that window overlapping with a time when unfathomably higher quality debt products were offering similar returns on 3 year timeframes". And just listening to them makes me second-guess myself.
My point? It is ironic and humorous that the most compelling justification for the accredited investor rule is listening to people talk about how they would invest if the accredited investor rule didn't exist.
For the record, since people keep completely losing the plot: I think something like an educational requirement makes a lot more sense.
Crypto fans want deregulated finance. Crypto fans get mad when deregulated finance is comically unfair. You really can’t make this up. Embrace this. It’s exactly what crypto is all about.
A lot of the rah-rah boosterism of "decentralization" is coming from VCs that saw how much money there is to be made by ignoring laws and regulations for long enough. Airbnb and Uber are the most brazen examples of this. What's left unsaid of course is that the only interest deep-pocketed investors have in dismantling elements of the financial system (MC/Visa dominance, KYC/AML checks, suspicious transactions disclos…
Most people on HN here don't have a clue of what they are talking about, whether it is financial market regulation or cryptocurrency or blockchain technology. What makes this topic difficult to approach is the degree of complex issues which surrounds it. We are looking at the intersection of technology innovation, the long-standing failure of institutional and market mechanisms, and combined with a bleak macroeconomi…
It may still be true that "most people" here don't have a clue about it, but it's a hollow criticism since far more have a clue here than elsewhere.
Crypto fans want deregulated finance. Crypto fans get mad when deregulated finance is comically unfair. You really can’t make this up. Embrace this. It’s exactly what crypto is all about.
Coinbase is an SEC “compliant” company. What specifically about this company is “deregulated”?