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

Initial Coin Offerings Horrify a Former S.E.C. Regulator

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 194 posts

Re: Initial Coin Offerings Horrify a Former S.E.C. Regulator

#181

Post by Taniwha »

mindcrime wrote: post #172
Taniwha wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Governments are political beasts, if they are working correctly they respond to the will of the people, and if the people decide that "something must be done about financial scams" they make laws. It's how democracies work

It's how democracies work And? "Democracies" aren't inherently good, just, noble or virtuous. As the old saying goes "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the outcome".

Not really an old saying, unless I guess you are really really young, the first part, often misattributed to Franklin first turned up in the popular literature in the 90's, the last sentence was tacked on later BT someone else

Re: Initial Coin Offerings Horrify a Former S.E.C. Regulator

#182

Post by summer_steven »

gamblor956 wrote: post #176
summer_steven wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So it used to be "only white, male landowners are responsible enough to invest" and now its "only the very richest Americans are responsible enough to invest". The SEC is blatantly discriminating. Why can't I sign a piece of paper and accept responsibility for myself? I'm a grown man with 200k+ in assets, I don't need the government to protect me.

If you're a grown man with $200k+ in assets, you appear to qualify to be an accredited investor and you don't need the government to protect you...which is the point of the accredited investor rules. You have the financial resources to absorb a few bad investments/scams. Most people don't have the resources to absorb even one bad investment.

In the United States, to be considered an accredited investor, one must have a net worth of at least $1,000,000, excluding the value of one's primary residence, or have income at least $200,000 each year for the last two years (or $300,000 combined income if married

Re: Initial Coin Offerings Horrify a Former S.E.C. Regulator

#183

Post by conanbatt »

gamblor956 wrote: post #174
conanbatt wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Founders, employees, institutional and retail investors got together and voted for the SEC? Are you sure about that?

America is a republic. Founders, employees, institutional, and retail investors got together, voted for Congressional representatives who then wrote the law creating the SEC and investment rules decades ago. In the decades since, Founders, employees, institutional, and retail investors have continued to elect Congressional representatives who have strengthened and broadened those rules.

Really. So if you made a public vote about removing the accredited investment requirements and 51% of the people voted against it, it would blow your mind entirely?

Re: Initial Coin Offerings Horrify a Former S.E.C. Regulator

#184

Post by mindcrime »

Taniwha wrote: post #181
mindcrime wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's how democracies work And? "Democracies" aren't inherently good, just, noble or virtuous. As the old saying goes "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the outcome".

Not really an old saying, unless I guess you are really really young, the first part, often misattributed to Franklin first turned up in the popular literature in the 90's, the last sentence was tacked on later BT someone else

That has absolutely nothing to do with the point at hand.

Re: Initial Coin Offerings Horrify a Former S.E.C. Regulator

#185

Post by aeternus »

jerkstate wrote: post #74

Yet Kickstarter, with all of the same risks of never getting what you paid for, and none of the potential benefits of becoming a stakeholder, is still perfectly fine.

I think the difference is scale. There are some exceptions but most Kickstarter pledges are less than $200. ICO exposure can be much higher.

Re: Initial Coin Offerings Horrify a Former S.E.C. Regulator

#186

Post by Taniwha »

mindcrime wrote: post #184
Taniwha wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really an old saying, unless I guess you are really really young, the first part, often misattributed to Franklin first turned up in the popular literature in the 90's, the last sentence was tacked on later BT someone else

That has absolutely nothing to do with the point at hand.

You claimed an aphorism, implying it was valid because it was old,it isn't, it's made up poppycock by some American survivalist twit

Re: Initial Coin Offerings Horrify a Former S.E.C. Regulator

#187

Post by leereeves »

nrhk wrote: post #146
leereeves wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it really cheaper or easier to buy BTC, transfer them, then sell them than to transfer money through a traditional service?

Faster and cheaper with segwit not sure what its like currently. I transferred 5k to someone in 40 seconds for like a 20 cent fee with Eth a few months ago, it could be 100k and the fee would stay the same too. You also get the money immediately without it going through the ACH network.

That's if you already have BTC and the person you're transferring to wants BTC, but if you're simply using BTC as a way to transfer fiat money from one country to another, there are more fees and delays in the buying and selling.

Re: Initial Coin Offerings Horrify a Former S.E.C. Regulator

#188

Post by conanbatt »

gamblor956 wrote: post #173
conanbatt wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you are an investor, accreditation rules eliminate 95+% of the population as competition for your investment. That means you will get higher returns and better negotiation terms. Even founders cant invest in their own bethren! Think about that. YC startup founders could get together, talk to each other, and NOT be able to invest in each other. Neither could employees that have access to internal financials. You co…

If you are an investor, accreditation rules eliminate 95+% of the population as competition for your investment. That means you will get higher returns and better negotiation terms. Actually, for non-startups (i.e., 99% of new businesses), loans from banks, family, and friends, are the primary form of investment. This method of investing does not require the investor to be accredited. Neither could employees that hav…

> Actually, for non-startups (i.e., 99% of new businesses), loans from banks, family, and friends, are the primary form of investment. This method of investing does not require the investor to be accredited.

Precisely because its illegal to do it otherwise..you are making my case for me with this statement.

> If the increased capital is coming from employees, then this is just a circular transaction: the money goes from the employee, to the company, back to the employee again = no net financial difference.

It could be divested from other less profitable capital investments like index funds, real estate or straight down cash. That lower competition of capital for startups means less startups and thus lower wages.

> Oh no! Juicero would never have existed!...Wait, that's a good thing, and the very existence of Juicero and other wasteful startups suggests that the problem is too much capital, not too little.

Thats your opinion, but you are making a comment on a site run by an institution whose primary goal is to make more startups.

Re: Initial Coin Offerings Horrify a Former S.E.C. Regulator

#189

Post by conanbatt »

gamblor956 wrote: post #177
conanbatt wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Each and every one of these regulations exist for a very good reason though. Any self-made software engineer with 5-10 years working at startups doesn't have the legal capacity to buy stocks in the company he works at. Think that as an investor, this rule eliminates 95% of your competition. As a founder, you have a much weaker position of negotiation. And as an employee, you have incredibly distorting restrictions…

A software engineer with 5-10 years of experience that doesn't have the financial resources to invest in a company (outside of the stock he is presumably receiving as compensation) has clearly demonstrated a lack of financial intelligence and investment saavy, and probably is the exact type of rube that the accredited investor rules are meant to protect. And as an employee, you have incredibly distorting restrictions…

> Blatantly false. An employee can receive unlimited amounts of stock as compensation. They're simply limited in their ability to expend their own financial resources to acquire stock of non-traded companies.

Today, employees negotiate the bulk of their stock only once: when they know the least about the company they work for. Not only that, but the information they have is asymetric with investors, because share classes are not the same which makes for a very convoluted and intrasparent market. Also, the majority of startup employees that quit do not excercise their options to the fullest: but they dont have the ease to sell those options to third parties, because of SEC rules. i.e. someone not able or willing to purchase stock when he leaves a company is most likely going to lose them. All consequence of this restriccion of buying and selling stock. Check out Sharepost for an example of this unmet market that drives down compensation.

> Very true. But this isn't one of the harmful regulations. And even if it is harmful, it prevents significantly more and greater harm than it inflicts.

What's your math to make this claim. I'm willing to be convinced in a strict utilitarian sense.

Re: Initial Coin Offerings Horrify a Former S.E.C. Regulator

#190

Post by fooker »

eternalban wrote: post #129
banderman wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The track record of humanity's decision making indicates that your statement is not accurate for a significant portion of the population.

Curious: Does that also apply to "democratic" processes? Should only "accredited citizens" have the right to vote?

Is that truly a bad idea?

Having to pass a test to demonstrate you understand the policy choices and how they affect you could be a good idea if done impartially.

Post reply on HN