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

231–240 of 386 posts

Re: China's Central Bank Bans ICOs

#231

Post by FLUX-YOU »

vortico wrote: post #57
nickserv wrote: post #27

Had to dig around 3 sites before finding a definition for ICO: ICO (Initial Crypto-Token Offering) refers to financing through the issuance of encrypted tokens (Crypto-Token).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Initial_Coin_Offering People should really learn to define acronyms before using them in all writing mediums. I don't care if the author has used the term 10,000 with colleagues, he should still define them upon their first use in the article body.

Where's your mouse-hover tooltip dictionary lookups now, internet?

Re: China's Central Bank Bans ICOs

#232

Post by rothbardrand »

kybernetikos wrote: post #198
rothbardrand wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 Ac…

Yes, and the "illegal activity" can be "money laundering"

Re: China's Central Bank Bans ICOs

#233

Post by rothbardrand »

cyphar wrote: post #196
rothbardrand wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

That's a new one, erecting a series of straw men and then demanding that I knock them down.

Of course you are incredulous because you want to believe that government is good and moral and its' right to be a slave.

Re: China's Central Bank Bans ICOs

#234

Post by croon »

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

I'm always torn in these debates.

I'm all for shutting down assholes tricking people, but at what point does it begin/end?

Short incomplete list off the top of my head of organisations tricking people out of money with scams:

* Most (if not all?) nootropics

* Prosperity gospel

* Nutritional cereal

* Other low fat/diet food stuffs

* Fashion

* Art

* Diamond industry

* etc etc

Re: China's Central Bank Bans ICOs

#236

Post by cyphar »

rothbardrand wrote: post #233
cyphar wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

That's a new one, erecting a series of straw men and then demanding that I knock them down. Of course you are incredulous because you want to believe that government is good and moral and its' right to be a slave.

I was asking you to provide evidence for this statement:

> Literally, under the legal definition, that's "laundering".

"Legal definitions" are defined through laws and common law interpretations of those laws. I was asking for evidence of either. Otherwise you're just making statements without any evidence. It's not a straw-man to better define your statement of "that's the legal definition" to mean "there has been a court case or statute where it has been shown that's what the law says" and then ask for proof of that. Maybe you can explain what you think a "legal definition" is and provide evidence of that?

Re: China's Central Bank Bans ICOs

#237

Post by drcode »

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?

Oh yeah, the war on drugs and minority encarceration that has resulted is totally the sort of successful government approach we want to emulate and apply to other sectors. (sarcasm)

Re: China's Central Bank Bans ICOs

#238

Post by smokeyj »

cyphar wrote: post #192
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…

> It ultimately comes down to what flavour of politics you subscribe to

If you were to tell any of your progressive friends about Reg-D, but framed it as written by "the 1%" - they'll naturally think the law is unjust and shouldn't exist.

I think this has less to do with political flavor and more to do with critical thinking skills. Unless Reg-D also bans gambling at Vegas and throwing your money down a well - then it comes up short of it's protectionist goals. But it definitely succeeds in protecting qualified investors from "unqualified" investors.

Re: China's Central Bank Bans ICOs

#239

Post by cyphar »

rothbardrand wrote: post #224
cyphar wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Those "studies" are self serving. That is the political propaganda keeping you feeling safe in having your rights violated. This isn't a question of flavor of politics- but fundamental rights. Do you have freedom of association or not? Secondly, you think its "fairly clear to [you]" that these ICOs are scams. I am sure some are, but I know for a fact that many are not. I am quite capable of telling the difference (as…

> Those "studies" are self serving. That is the political propaganda keeping you feeling safe in having your rights violated.

Ah, so you're the only source of truth that I can trust in this discussion, since no study can be trusted? Awesome.

Can you answer my question about at which point do you think "freedom to invest in an enterprise" should not be allowed? I'll quote my question again:

> 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?

Re: China's Central Bank Bans ICOs

#240

Post by lettergram »

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…

Although I read what you wrote and to a large extent agree, I have to say, love the name: RothbardRand (Murry Rothbard was a major figure in Austrian School of economics and modern libertarianism. Ayn Rand a philosopher, and developer of the philosophical framework of Objectivism)

Makes sense why you feel this way.

What I will say, is no one stopped you from investing in Uber, besides Uber. Tomorrow I can go out and sell half my C-Corp to a friend. Legally, no one is stopping me, besides me and my contract(s). My company isn't publically traded, and as such, I haven't released shares to be bought and sold.

That being said, if you're talking about "accredition" - that shouldn't stop you from being able to invest in a friend's or aquantences company. At least until you have 35 of said people..

Which I agree is B.S., at the same time - it's just a way to ensure you don't get massive companies like Uber getting billions of funding and providing no services. It's an attempt at curbing a dot-com-esqu bubble. Overall, I do think this is government over reach, but I do see the point.

There are ways around that FYI, for example there isn't a reason a financial advisor couldn't invest on your behalf.

Post reply on HN