Keep trying and trying, It wont work. By that's none of my business
China's Central Bank Bans ICOs
151–160 of 386 posts
Re: China's Central Bank Bans ICOs
#152Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oh yes they can thrive .. for quite a while .. remember Jordan Belfort? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jordan_Belfort
If the scam is very well executed, it will thrives for a bit longer even with laws against scams, as your link shows. However, once publicly exposed, the scammer's bad reputation will ensure no one will trust doing business with him again in his field, much more so than any anti-scamming laws that punished him with those 22 months in jail.
> the scammer's bad reputation will ensure no one will trust doing business with him again in his field
That doesn't like a problem for people who can fill a ~20 million ICO in half an hour, do they need to work (=be trusted) ever again?
Re: China's Central Bank Bans ICOs
#153I 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 the first dozen ICOs that turn out to be scams can break consumer confidence across the whole market. When people stop trusting, the system collapses.
This isn't hardship, just put your money somewhere else.
Re: China's Central Bank Bans ICOs
#154I 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.
First off, bubbles are a side effect of the money cycle which is created by central banking -- both the Dotcom and 2008 bubbles were created by the Fed selling money below cost, building a massive carry trade in, for instance, houses.
Secondly, if there is a crash, the best thing to do is nothing. Let the people who invested poorly get wiped out-- it's better for the economy. (There are examples of this too- crashes that happened before the federal reserve which were much worse than the 1929 crash, but which are forgotten to history because they didn't create Great Depressions because there was no Federal Reserve to "bail out the system")
The bailouts of 2008 were the worst thing that came out of that. Government shouldn't be bailing out these businesses, especially after those businesses made billions getting below cost money from that same government.
IT's not really economics you're talking about here but the corruption in the system.
Bailouts are part of the game-- thats how they scam us. Bailouts don't protect us (that's the con.)
For an excellent history of money and the last 100 years of bailouts and how this exact same thing has been done dozens of times already-- check out G Edward Griffens "The Creature from Jekyll Island" -- it's a history book about money, but it's anything but dry.
Re: China's Central Bank Bans ICOs
#155I 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.
Ugh what? If you're not directly hurting someone there shouldn't be a law against it.
For instance, a law against DUIs make sense, it's so you don't kill people. A law requiring seat belt wearing - not so much.
Re: China's Central Bank Bans ICOs
#156Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Two consenting adults". That is a misrepresentation of reality. You could say the same about Pyramid schemes. No one forced others to buy into it. The point is ICOs are akin to scams. And there should be a regulations around it.
You can't make a blanket characterisation of token sales like that. They're not categorically scams.
Which is a lot people in this thread want regulation as opposed to a flat out ban.
Re: China's Central Bank Bans ICOs
#157This was a needed move. Too many scamcoins are appearing and selling their overpriced offerings. It's like Kickstarter, but for larger sums of money and less accountability if things don't materialise. We are heading for a pretty serious ICO bubble if ICO's can continue to operate like they are and I can only hope that the USA follows suit next.
The crypto markets right now are in a free fall as a result of the panic. This is a ban on ICO's, not a ban on cryptocurrency. People don't realise how instrumental China is in the crypto world, quite crazy. I am taking this opportunity to buy up promising alt coins like TenX ($pay) which are all incredibly unvervalued right now as a result of the drop.
As we learned with Bitcoin, panic is temporary and eventually things will bounce back. We are entering a brave new world with cryptocoins as they reach the mainstream.
Re: China's Central Bank Bans ICOs
#158Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 equiv…
In this subthread I am arguing that someone who can create an altcoin or ICO from their home in a weekend is not necessarily a financial genius who should be paid millions, as it's fairly easy to do.
In other subthreads I am saying why I think the ban on ICOs might be welcomed, even if it could take the good down with the bad. I'm not arguing in any thread for an outright ban on digital currencies.
Re: China's Central Bank Bans ICOs
#159Earlier quoted context omitted.
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,…
I don't like the idea of a safety net that depends mostly on the contributions of those who least want to be party to it.
Regarding looking out for each other with bans on dangerous goods/services, I have no problem with a voluntary program that people enroll in to be looked after in this manner. We could have a state-backed coop that we voluntarily cede some of our rights to for a predetermined amount of time (e.g. 5 years), and over that timeframe, we are obliged to use the government's software guards on our smartphones/PCs, that prevents us from transacting with entities not on the government's whitelist.
But people should be able to live without those protections if they so choose. Accepting anything otherwise is accepting a servile existence for oneself and everyone else.
Re: China's Central Bank Bans ICOs
#160Why 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 matt…
The law you're referring to is more about marketing investments.
You're still free to give your friend 10k for a startup.
It's to prevent boiler room style organizations that quite effectively convince people without much information that an investment is sound when it's not.