131–140 of 386 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's all sorts of things that consenting adults aren't allowed to do, even if 'free and willing'.
I know, and I wish there were more things consenting adults would not be allowed to do, even free and willing. In an ideal world, adults should not be allowed to do anything without asking permission from government first. Hopefully we'll get there someday.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's all sorts of things that consenting adults aren't allowed to do, even if 'free and willing'.
I know, and I wish there were more things consenting adults would not be allowed to do, even free and willing. In an ideal world, adults should not be allowed to do anything without asking permission from government first. Hopefully we'll get there someday.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I believe in freedom of association, I also believe that the market is driven by reputation, therefor bad actors (in this case scammers) cannot thrive (see how bad vendors get eliminated by the market on ebay or amazon without government help, just bad reputation).
Oh yes they can thrive .. for quite a while .. remember Jordan Belfort? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jordan_Belfort
What they've done is very gentle soft-touch stuff. They've been calling ICO promoters and strongly suggesting they get their legal ducks in a row.
https://davidgerard.co.uk/blockchain/2017/09/01/the-sec-told...
Protostarr - who hadn't consulted a lawyer at all - shut down and returned the money; BenjaCoin went "actually we're good" and has argued such to the SEC.
The SEC's approach is considerably softer-touch than most people expected - but despite the rantings of crypto paranoiacs, the government is not in fact there to harsh your mellow. Point 3 of the SEC’s mission statement is "facilitate capital formation" - they explicitly see their job as helping you get rich! But of course, point 2 is "maintain fair, orderly, and efficient markets," and point 1 is "protect investors".
I assume most of the HN readers are from USA and I can't believe my eyes what I'm reading here. People cheering a government's ban on what its citizens can do with their lawfully earned money. I worked for my money, I paid huge amounts of taxes on them. Why is it ok for somebody to come and tell me what I can and can't do with them, and then telling me it's in my best interest to not be allowed to invest them.
I assume most of the HN readers are from USA and I can't believe my eyes what I'm reading here. People cheering a government's ban on what its citizens can do with their lawfully earned money. I worked for my money, I paid huge amounts of taxes on them. Why is it ok for somebody to come and tell me what I can and can't do with them, and then telling me it's in my best interest to not be allowed to invest them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm really not sure I see a difference, if you're going to start from the absolutist position that the state needs to butt out. Either way, bans or forcing provision for retirement etc, you're taking the position that someone else does know best, and that they need protecting from their own spending behaviour. After that it's just a matter of degree.
My position is that there should be no social safety net provided at the taxpayer's expense. If one is going to argue that we ought to provide a safety net, and ought to limit people's right to decide how to live their own life to prevent this safety net from being unduly burdened, then I would respond that even if one were to accept that assumption, a less disruptive way of meeting this goal would be with a forced s…
I also don't really consider it a trade-off - regardless of a social safety net, we ought to be restricting borderline scams. A lot of people aren't very smart, or are only smart in very specific directions. And they don't know they're not that smart. They can be taken in, scammed and fleeced, and this creates a problem not just for them but for lots of others too. This is why we restrict things like pyramid schemes.
Finally somebody in position of power stepped in to stop this mad online casino. I was not expecting this sensible move from China, was hoping EU or US would lead the way on regulating this crypto fraud. I hope Fed/ECB follow the Chinese Central Bank and ban ICOs too and start regulating crypto and enforcing some basic rules.
Yeah, what's with consenting adults freely and willingly contracting with each others. I'm glad the powers that be put an end to that madness.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because you and the SEC know much better than all of them? You know we're talking about the same SEC that didn't saw the real estate bubble coming in 2007/08 (size > trillions, CDOs are obviously fine) or the dotcom bubble in 2000 (size > trillions, they approved the IPOs, right)? If so, please give me reasons (instead of opinions or references to SEC "authority") as to why the ICOs in a 175 bn market are "dangerous"…
My opinion is not important. The issue is lots of unsophisticated investors are betting their savings / money they can't afford to lose on cryptocurrency in hopes to flip their investment quickly and get rich. This is something which should be regulated so you can't just randomly dump your IRA/401k to buy some random cryptocurrency generated over a weekend by some person in a garage with shell company in Cayman Islan…
I assume most of the HN readers are from USA and I can't believe my eyes what I'm reading here. People cheering a government's ban on what its citizens can do with their lawfully earned money. I worked for my money, I paid huge amounts of taxes on them. Why is it ok for somebody to come and tell me what I can and can't do with them, and then telling me it's in my best interest to not be allowed to invest them.