Investor Bulletin, July 25: Initial Coin Offerings

Post by dsr_ » Thu, Aug 17, 2017, 11:16 PM UTC

dgfgfdagasdfgfa wrote: post #19

itsnotlupus wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Annoyingly enough, that's not sufficient to make those ICOs scam. The easiest counterexample would be Ethereum itself, who had a teenager as its public face, and raised large amounts of funds on top of mostly just a whitepaper, yet turned out to actually deliver all the crazy stuff they promised.

> deliver all the crazy stuff they promised. I dunno; I'm still trying to figure out whether it's a great idea or the worst idea. I don't want to have to do a code review on my investments; at large enough scale, lawyers are way cheaper than losing money.

Post by dgfgfdagasdfgfa » Thu, Aug 17, 2017, 11:49 PM UTC

dsr_ wrote: post #21

dgfgfdagasdfgfa wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> deliver all the crazy stuff they promised. I dunno; I'm still trying to figure out whether it's a great idea or the worst idea. I don't want to have to do a code review on my investments; at large enough scale, lawyers are way cheaper than losing money.

Lawyers perform code review on contracts. Sadly, they don't have debuggers or reference compilers, just written language definitions and consultable output collections.

Post by quickthrower2 » Thu, Aug 17, 2017, 11:58 PM UTC

aaron-lebo wrote: post #7

anton_tarasenko wrote: post #5

The SEC uses quite a mild language here. Issuers often avoid mentioning even what they sell: revenue flow, profit, or just hashes. White papers has no traces of legal entities involved, dispute resolution jurisdiction, financial statements. A proper prospectus: - https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1447599/000119312515... And how ICO white papers look like: - https://detectortoken.com/docs/DetectorToken_White_Pap…

The cryptocurrency community is hilariously bad (well, it would be funny if people weren't getting fleeced) about putting blog posts through Latex and acting like they've written a "paper". The people who have written dozens of real papers that end up in a dustbin somewhere are jealous. The funny thing is most of these docs would be more accessible as blog posts, but those don't provide the same faux-academic thing c…

Post by sbierwagen » Fri, Aug 18, 2017, 12:18 AM UTC

dgfgfdagasdfgfa wrote: post #23

dsr_ wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lawyers perform code review on contracts. Sadly, they don't have debuggers or reference compilers, just written language definitions and consultable output collections.

> Sadly, they don't have debuggers or reference compilers, just written language definitions and consultable output collections. Why on earth would you want this? That's tantamount to replacing the court system itself, and I definitely prefer juries and judges to compilers and debuggers.

Post by burritofanatic » Fri, Aug 18, 2017, 1:26 AM UTC

bpicolo wrote: post #2

> Ask whether the blockchain is open and public, whether the code has been published, and whether there has been an independent cybersecurity audit. That's an entirely prescient statement that suggests the SEC has done a serious bit of homework and has put careful thought into the subject.