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

China's Central Bank Bans ICOs

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 386 posts

Re: China's Central Bank Bans ICOs

#141

Post by davidgerard »

simias wrote: post #40
Jedi72 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is one of the things about bitcoin nobody has ever explained to me adequately. Governments use monetary policy & other economic tools to regulate the economy. Assuming we're all Keynsians here, this is a pretty important feature that govts will not give up, so how is Bitcoin ever supposed to supplant fiat currency?

I think many of the Bitcoin fans[1] are also in favor of the gold standard. They don't want the government to be able to "print money". Actually I just noticed that the Wikipedia page on the gold standard has a section about bitcoin: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_standard#Gold_standard_an... [1] At those who bother to think about the long term economic consequences of Bitcoin instead of just trying to Get Rich Q…

Literally. Bitcoin politics is goldbug politics with the buzzword changed. https://davidgerard.co.uk/blockchain/the-conspiracist-gold-b...

The key book nailing down every dot of this is "The Politics of Bitcoin" by David Golumbia. https://www.amazon.com/dp/1517901804/

Re: China's Central Bank Bans ICOs

#142

Post by sametmax »

ezVoodoo wrote: post #135
tudorconstantin wrote: post #129

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.

Interesting! Why the US government punishes trading drugs with my own money? I mean that is my lawfully earned money! Why? Why? Why?

Precisely. The fact something is yours is irrelevant. If it's your gun, i still want the state to make it illegal to shoot your kids with it.

Re: China's Central Bank Bans ICOs

#143

Post by CryptoPunk »

Nursie wrote: post #137
CryptoPunk wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Personally I don't want to live in a society without a safety net, or the other niceties of a modern civil society. 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…

I would love voluntary safety nets. I just don't like compulsory ones paid for at the taxpayers expense. It reduces choice, breeds corruption and unaccountability, and does not offer people the option to opt-out. But this is not really the forum to debate that, as it can get quite detailed.

As for those not capable of fending for themselves in a free market: maybe it would be a better idea to have a new class of citizen that, after passing a rationality test, is allowed to buy/invest-in whatever they want, while making the rest of the population in some sense wards of the state, with safety guards on their smartphones and PCs, and a state-appointed counseler greenlighting all of their financial transactions, or at least all of the entities they are allowed to transact with.

As for token sales, you can't categorise them all as borderline scams. It depends on the token sale.

Re: China's Central Bank Bans ICOs

#144

Post by CryptoPunk »

tudorconstantin wrote: post #129

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.

You're intelligent and thus should be free. But the law can't create multiple classes of people with different sets of rights, so to protect the stupid, who can't handle that amount of freedom, your rights need to be limited as well.

^ I assume this is how supporters of such laws think about the issue.

Re: China's Central Bank Bans ICOs

#145

Post by samsonradu »

tudorconstantin wrote: post #129

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.

Because when the whole system collapses due to gigantic bubbles explodind (caused by the lesser financially educated masses) the government will likely use your tax money to keeps thing afloat and you won't like that either. Your money only has value in an economically stable context.

Re: China's Central Bank Bans ICOs

#146

Post by Nursie »

CryptoPunk wrote: post #143
Nursie wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Personally I don't want to live in a society without a safety net, or the other niceties of a modern civil society. 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…

I would love voluntary safety nets. I just don't like compulsory ones paid for at the taxpayers expense. It reduces choice, breeds corruption and unaccountability, and does not offer people the option to opt-out. But this is not really the forum to debate that, as it can get quite detailed. As for those not capable of fending for themselves in a free market: maybe it would be a better idea to have a new class of citi…

I don't think voluntary safety nets work - it's precisely the people who wouldn't pay into one that are most in need of doing so.

Almost all citizens are badly informed and easily taken in by one thing or other. We look after each other in various ways. Civil safety nets and criminal law are part of those.

>> As for token sales, you can't categorise them all as borderline scams. It depends on the token sale.

Indeed, and many of them are without substance, riding the wave of interest in ICO tokens, and are borderline scams. I did not say all are, but enough that regulation in this space is more or less inevitable, and will be warmly welcomed by many.

There are a f*ckton of laws around IPOs and share trading, for good reasons.

Re: China's Central Bank Bans ICOs

#147

Post by rothbardrand »

Why don't rich people need protection? Here's the answer: this is their protection. It reduces their competition.

Seriously, these securities rules keep people like me from investing in AirBnB and Uber (two that I caught very early and wanted into)... but we can all go to Vegas and lose $100k in a single weekend. But putting $10k into Uber's seed round is somehow a crime I need to be protected from? Truth of the matter is this is the essence of capitalism-- it is my right to invest in Uber's seed round and Uber's right to have me as an investor (if they consent), whether I am "accredited" or not. This is basic "Freedom of association" which underpins everything from gay marriage to the right to refuse service to barefoot people.

Also, of course, I've lost my own $10k on more than one occasions starting companies. (And I've made much more as well.) Why do I need protection from myself? Especially when the terms of that protection are written by people who don't know what SHA256 is.

No, these regulations mainly keep the middle class and the not-quite-wealthy-enough from investing in the highest upside opportunities. I know it's better to put $10k into 10 different seed rounds than $100k into one seed round. I don't need to be accredited to know that.

And I've certainly lost a lot more than that (and made even more) in the stock market using complicated options strategies involving multiple legs and expirations-- I'm the very definition of a sophisticated investor....

.... but I can't be trusted to give a startup $10k?

This is what regulation tends to do, which people don't seem to get -- it raises the bar keeping the little guy out.

Once again, the rich get richer and the poor and middle class have less opportunity.

PS-- To those responding: Yes, I have heard "but what about the grandmas? won't anyone think of the grandmas???" before. I'm acutely aware of the history of this type of regulation in the USA. Ultimately this stuff keeps grandmas poor.

You should all read G. Edward Griffens "The Creature from Jekyll Island". It's a history book about money, but it's not in the least dry.

Government always has an excuse, usually a claim to be helping or protecting people, when it violates our rights.

Keeping me out of Uber's seed round is a violation of my rights.

Re: China's Central Bank Bans ICOs

#148

Post by AndrewKemendo »

Loic wrote: post #92
richardknop wrote: post #32

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.

I had a discussion about crypto currencies with a pretty high level EU diplomat from the trade commission. His point was simple, as soon as they will consider the crypto currencies as a medium to escape taxes and general "rules" (whatever it means) they will simply ban or regulate them to put them back into the control of a central authority.

Seriously, I had this conversation with someone on Twitter and it was like they had no clue this was an option.

A state power isn't going to let some random currency come in and compete with their sovereign currency rules.

Re: China's Central Bank Bans ICOs

#149

Post by aleclarsoniv »

Nursie wrote: post #118
omarchowdhury wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right. Now convince me to buy the coins, that's the challenge.

At the moment, the convincing doesn't seem to need to be very much, particularly where ICOs are involved. Copy someone else's white paper, post in a few forums with the word ICO splashed around liberally, and Bob's your uncle. I think that's kinda why people are welcoming this move - there's a lot of trash coins and trash ICOs with no hope of anything ever coming from them, with a relatively low input of time and eff…

I'm not sure this argument holds much weight. All investments have inherent risk. It's the job of the investors to assume how much risk they're taking. You cannot ban all digital currencies simply because a large amount of ICOs are poorly thought through, if not malicious. That would block a huge amount of innovation in a technology with huge potential to revolutionize many markets, if not all markets.

It's the equivalent of banning startups to protect investors from stupid/malicious founders, which has obvious negative effects on the economy. And with crowdfunding making its way to startup investment, it's not a reach to compare the two.

Re: China's Central Bank Bans ICOs

#150

Post by Nursie »

CryptoPunk wrote: post #144
tudorconstantin wrote: post #129

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.

You're intelligent and thus should be free. But the law can't create multiple classes of people with different sets of rights, so to protect the stupid, who can't handle that amount of freedom, your rights need to be limited as well. ^ I assume this is how supporters of such laws think about the issue.

Would you dispute that a lot of people are idiots?

Would you dispute that even (otherwise) smart people can and do get taken in by dodgy financial schemes?

Regulations are there for good reasons...

Post reply on HN