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

SEC Halts a Real Initial Coin Offering

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 21 posts

Re: SEC Halts a Real Initial Coin Offering

#11

Post by Erlich_Bachman »

jstanley wrote: post #6
lgats wrote: post #2

good job SEC.

Yes, thanks SEC for preventing free people from entering into voluntary transactions.

If you are getting scammed into a transaction (by providing you fake or consciously misleading information, misleading possibilities of monetary gains, etc.) - is that really a "voluntary" transaction?

I think "voluntary" should mean that both parties know what this transaction would realistically mean for both of them and the actual risks involved. When you are being scammed (by many of the ICOs (not all of them)) - that does not sound like a voluntary transaction to me.

Re: SEC Halts a Real Initial Coin Offering

#12

Post by dsr_ »

jstanley wrote: post #6
lgats wrote: post #2

good job SEC.

Yes, thanks SEC for preventing free people from entering into voluntary transactions.

Well, yes, that's one of its major functions. Every con artist in the history of the world has depended on people making voluntary transactions.

Charles Ponzi didn't coerce anyone.

419 scammers depend on your voluntary stupidity.

Telemarketers don't hold a gun to your head.

Re: SEC Halts a Real Initial Coin Offering

#13

Post by DennisP »

throwaway613834 wrote: post #8
jstanley wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, thanks SEC for preventing free people from entering into voluntary transactions.

> Yes, thanks SEC for preventing free people from entering into voluntary transactions. Allowing free people to enter into whatever voluntary transactions they would like is basically the definition of anarchism. It's surprising to see people advocating for anarchism on HN this often, especially in obscured fashions like this rather than explicitly. Anarchy was never the vision for our society and is not generally se…

I think anarchism is more a lack of any government that prevents involuntary transactions, such as theft. If you have a government that only prevents involuntary transactions, while allowing all voluntary ones, what you actually have is minarchist libertarianism.

(But a minarchist also includes fraud in prohibited transactions, which does take out some of these ICOs.)

Re: SEC Halts a Real Initial Coin Offering

#14

Post by Talyen42 »

Most of the SEC's concerns about ICOs are related to marketing promises (amazing returns, we won't just steal your money and run away, etc etc.), and justifiably so.

I'm actually impressed with how well the SEC has been able to differentiate between legitimate cryptocurrencies and scam projects.

Re: SEC Halts a Real Initial Coin Offering

#15

Post by dzdt »

Talyen42 wrote: post #14

Most of the SEC's concerns about ICOs are related to marketing promises (amazing returns, we won't just steal your money and run away, etc etc.), and justifiably so. I'm actually impressed with how well the SEC has been able to differentiate between legitimate cryptocurrencies and scam projects.

I suggest you read the article. The point of it is that, in this case, the SEC does not object to marketing promises (though they probably could have).

The SEC objects that this ICO has an investment component. That is, that it is sold to people hoping to make money from it.

Basically they are enforcing that if there is an investment component, the coin is a security and needs to comply with security offering law.

Re: SEC Halts a Real Initial Coin Offering

#16

Post by mindcrime »

throwaway613834 wrote: post #8
jstanley wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, thanks SEC for preventing free people from entering into voluntary transactions.

> Yes, thanks SEC for preventing free people from entering into voluntary transactions. Allowing free people to enter into whatever voluntary transactions they would like is basically the definition of anarchism. It's surprising to see people advocating for anarchism on HN this often, especially in obscured fashions like this rather than explicitly. Anarchy was never the vision for our society and is not generally se…

Anarchy was never the vision for our society and is not generally seen as a desirable end goal.

According to who? There are two or three of us who absolutely see anarchy as a desirable end goal. In the case of a lot of hackers, it's more specifically "anarcho-capitalism" or "voluntaryism" as opposed to what a lot of people call anarchy (what I'd probably call left-anarchism or socialist anarchism). But anarchy of a sort nonetheless.

Re: SEC Halts a Real Initial Coin Offering

#17

Post by mindcrime »

dsr_ wrote: post #12
jstanley wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, thanks SEC for preventing free people from entering into voluntary transactions.

Well, yes, that's one of its major functions. Every con artist in the history of the world has depended on people making voluntary transactions. Charles Ponzi didn't coerce anyone. 419 scammers depend on your voluntary stupidity. Telemarketers don't hold a gun to your head.

The thing is, it's one thing to have a legal system that can provide for redress and restitution in the case of actual fraud. It's quite another thing to have a legal system that prevents voluntary transactions simply because some of them might be fraud.

Re: SEC Halts a Real Initial Coin Offering

#18

Post by throwaway613834 »

mindcrime wrote: post #16
throwaway613834 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Yes, thanks SEC for preventing free people from entering into voluntary transactions. Allowing free people to enter into whatever voluntary transactions they would like is basically the definition of anarchism. It's surprising to see people advocating for anarchism on HN this often, especially in obscured fashions like this rather than explicitly. Anarchy was never the vision for our society and is not generally se…

Anarchy was never the vision for our society and is not generally seen as a desirable end goal. According to who? There are two or three of us who absolutely see anarchy as a desirable end goal. In the case of a lot of hackers, it's more specifically "anarcho-capitalism" or "voluntaryism" as opposed to what a lot of people call anarchy (what I'd probably call left-anarchism or socialist anarchism). But anarchy of a s…

>> is not generally seen as a desirable end goal.

> According to who? There are two or three of us who absolutely see anarchy as a desirable end goal

2-3 people? What claim are you even contesting? I said it's not generally seen as desirable, not that there exists nobody on this planet who sees it as desirable. Are you somehow under the the US population is generally anarchist?

Re: SEC Halts a Real Initial Coin Offering

#19

Post by mindcrime »

throwaway613834 wrote: post #18
mindcrime wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anarchy was never the vision for our society and is not generally seen as a desirable end goal. According to who? There are two or three of us who absolutely see anarchy as a desirable end goal. In the case of a lot of hackers, it's more specifically "anarcho-capitalism" or "voluntaryism" as opposed to what a lot of people call anarchy (what I'd probably call left-anarchism or socialist anarchism). But anarchy of a s…

>> is not generally seen as a desirable end goal. > According to who? There are two or three of us who absolutely see anarchy as a desirable end goal 2-3 people? What claim are you even contesting? I said it's not generally seen as desirable , not that there exists nobody on this planet who sees it as desirable . Are you somehow under the the US population is generally anarchist?

Sorry, I though the intentional hyperbole there was completely obvious, but it looks like you read that dead-pan / literal. Never mind, I don't have time to invest in this right now.

Re: SEC Halts a Real Initial Coin Offering

#20

Post by amarkov »

dzdt wrote: post #15
Talyen42 wrote: post #14

Most of the SEC's concerns about ICOs are related to marketing promises (amazing returns, we won't just steal your money and run away, etc etc.), and justifiably so. I'm actually impressed with how well the SEC has been able to differentiate between legitimate cryptocurrencies and scam projects.

I suggest you read the article. The point of it is that, in this case, the SEC does not object to marketing promises (though they probably could have). The SEC objects that this ICO has an investment component. That is, that it is sold to people hoping to make money from it. Basically they are enforcing that if there is an investment component, the coin is a security and needs to comply with security offering law.

It sounds like the basis for claiming this ICO has an investment component was that Munchee made marketing promises about how much money you'd stand to gain from participating.
Post reply on HN