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

191–200 of 386 posts

Re: China's Central Bank Bans ICOs

#191

Post by igorgue »

crypt1d wrote: post #82

A lot of people seem to suggest that some kind of regulation, or even outright ban, of ICOs is necessary. Apparently in order to prevent people from loosing their money on risky investments? I don't really understand why it is appropriate for someone else to tell me how to spend my hard earned money? Isn't that what freedom of choice is about? Even if I'm being manipulated into a scam, it is still MY choice. Let peop…

You don't understand why this community is butthurt over the way ICOs work, they're getting a very bad deal with the traditional investing route, so they're furious over other people getting great deals, calling all the projects a scam and celebrating government influence...

Very good HN very good.

Re: China's Central Bank Bans ICOs

#192

Post by cyphar »

rothbardrand wrote: post #147

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 matt…

It ultimately comes down to what flavour of politics you subscribe to. The key question is whether you think that the public should be protected against the abuses of the free market, or if the free market should be a complete free-for-all. For example, Dodd-Frank solved a concrete problem, and there have been countless studies that show it it responsible for stabilizing the US economy.

But ultimately, wanting to die on the ICO hill is a bit odd. I thought it was fairly clear (at least, it was fairly clear to me) that the whole "industry" is mostly powered by hype -- which leads to people being swindled out of their money. Wanting to protect a completely unregulated industry's ability to fool people into wasting their money doesn't seem like a sane or sustainable position (that's how economic crashes happen).

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

First of all, this is a story about China. Second of all, it's a story about ICOs and not non-ICO startups. Third of all, is it also a violation of your rights to not be able to fund companies in countries that are at war with your country (which I assume is the US)? Is it a violation of your rights to not be able to fund illegal activity? I'm just trying to gauge at which point does your view on "the inalienable right to invest in anything" stop short? I would expect that China is trying to come to a decision about whether ICOs should be made illegal or more regulated.

Re: China's Central Bank Bans ICOs

#193

Post by baq »

rothbardrand wrote: post #161
adbachman wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The reason ICOs were such a boon is that there has been no other path for the middle class to invest in startups. ICOs gave a level playing field and produced a resulting boom. Most people don't even know what a cryptocurrency is.

i'd need proof that it's the middle class that invests in ICOs and not money launderers.

Re: China's Central Bank Bans ICOs

#194

Post by joosters »

peoplewindow wrote: post #123
joosters wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The BoE lists all registered banks and building societies at: http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/pra/Pages/authorisations/bank... - FWIW, it includes Tesco Bank there. Perhaps Computer Weekly is not the best source of this information? Anyway, there's well over a hundred banks listed, and around forty building societies, so there's hardly a lack of competition.

The original statement was correct as of 2009. When the coalition came in, one of Osborne's first acts was to push the banking regulators to issue more banking licenses, due to that 100 year+ stagnation. Since the coalition, there have been a variety of new licenses issued, so the problem is now resolved.

Oops, my mistake, sorry!

Re: China's Central Bank Bans ICOs

#195

Post by Nursie »

omarchowdhury wrote: post #187
Nursie wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You only argued a portion of the point I was making. Simply making a cryptocurrency isn't enough. Differentiating in a way where I would be convinced to buy it, now that will obviously take genius since the mere creation of a cryptocurrency is commodity code. And it's not fair to say that just launching an ICO will mean an influx of money either, that is, token buyers are just shoving money into anything, because I c…

>> Differentiating in a way where I would be convinced to buy it, now that will obviously take genius

Evidently it doesn't really though, because we're in a stage where these are magic, and people are investing based on a little bit of hype which becomes self-sustaining.

There are lots of altcoins out there, most with not much value, but slowly trickling along. And there have been lots of ICOs of dubious value.

I obviously don't know what it takes to persuade you, personally, to invest. But it seems not to take much for the crypto-currency world at large to dive in right now.

Re: China's Central Bank Bans ICOs

#196

Post by cyphar »

rothbardrand wrote: post #174
justonepost wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing is these are a huge haven for money laundering which is probably the best explanation for the amounts raised.

Money laundering is what you are doing when you move money from your savings to your checking to pay your visa bill. Literally, under the legal definition, that's "laundering". It's a thought crime.

Can you point to the statute where you get that interpretation from? Preferably with court proceedings that show that a judge has actually decided that that is money laundering. Because I find that statement incredibly hard to believe.

Not to mention that you're completely ignoring GP's point, which is that it seems that money laundering may be occurring in an ICO. Is your claim that people only use ICOs to transfer money from a savings to a checking account to pay their VISA bills? Seems to me like there's a more airtight argument you might be able to come up with, given your self-proclaimed experience in the topic.

Re: China's Central Bank Bans ICOs

#197

Post by CryptoPunk »

Nursie wrote: post #185
CryptoPunk wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But banning them from participating in an entire class of financial transactions is not just protecting them from scams. There are token sales that are not scams. It's prohibiting them from entering into legitimate investments that simply don't have government approval (e.g. a securities sale that doesn't ask them for their ID, and thus doesn't meet securities regulations).

At this point there are enough scams to make people cheer for the ban. Perhaps a better answer would be regulation in a similar way to more traditional IPOs. >> an securities sale that doesn't ask them for their ID, and thus doesn't meet securities regulations Perhaps it's just not a good idea to have such a thing? Or perhaps the seller side of the equation, where you can't run an ICO without being registered and reg…

People support all sorts of things that reduce rights. Doesn't make it okay..

>>Perhaps it's just not a good idea to have such a thing? Or perhaps the seller side of the equation, where you can't run an ICO without being registered and regulated, is needed.

I don't believe we should be limiting other people's right to privacy and to exchange digital tokens (not guns or tanks) under any circumstance.

I think accepting the right of society to impose these limitations on individuals is accepting servility for everyone, and I find that enormously dangerous and harmful.

Re: China's Central Bank Bans ICOs

#198

Post by kybernetikos »

rothbardrand wrote: post #174
justonepost wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing is these are a huge haven for money laundering which is probably the best explanation for the amounts raised.

Money laundering is what you are doing when you move money from your savings to your checking to pay your visa bill. Literally, under the legal definition, that's "laundering". It's a thought crime.

I've sat through numerous courses on money laundering, and under none of the definitons used in any of those courses would transfering money from your savings account to your checking account to pay your visa bill be considered laundering, (unless the money in your savings account was acquired in a criminal way).

Check out the https://www.ffiec.gov/bsa%5Faml%5Finfobase/documents/regulat... Money Laundering Control Act of 1986. Every part of the definition requires the money be the proceeds or involved in a specified illegal activity.

Re: China's Central Bank Bans ICOs

#199

Post by slowmotiony »

negamax wrote: post #181
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.

This is much welcome ruling and US should follow suit. Current modus operandi is of pump and dump to lure unsuspecting people. Some ICOs are borderline scams. Using Facebook ads to promise the riches. It's almost disgusting

Yeah well there's also shitty companies which are publicly traded, I'm supposed to make my own choice here aren't I? Isn't that the point of investing?

Re: China's Central Bank Bans ICOs

#200

Post by dsacco »

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.

> People cheering a government's ban on what its citizens can do with their lawfully earned money.

Are you okay with laws about how money is earned? Why? If yes, why are you not okay with laws about how money is spent?

There are a vast number of regulations imposed on how you spend your money is spent in any government. Do you categorically disagree with them or are you okay with some of them?

EDIT: Every time a thread pops up like this, Hacker News seems to decide it's time to reinvent socioeconomic policy from first principles. Often libertarian principles. I'm trying to inject basic questions in here because much of the comment-response activity in the thread seems to be reactionary debating without substantive proof or rebuttal.

Outrage is fine! Your opinions are (probably) fine! But please try not to use personal opinions as axioms. Deconstruct your reasoning just a bit folks.

Post reply on HN