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

251–260 of 386 posts

Re: China's Central Bank Bans ICOs

#251

Post by tuna-piano »

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…

The US recently started allowing startups to raise money from non-accredited investors. It's just that most legitimate startups still prefer raising from legitimate investors.

This has left "startups" like this "company" YayYo, which raise money from TV commercials stating that they'll become the next Uber.

http://www.businessinsider.com/yayyo-ipo-ads-tv-ramy-el-batr...

Re: China's Central Bank Bans ICOs

#252

Post by felipeko »

dsacco wrote: post #200
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 thre…

The principle is pretty simple, if it's two consenting adults doing something that does not impact a third person rights, they should be allowed to do it.

So I would be okay with laws about how money is earned, if there's a third person being impacted (pollution, for example), and i am okay with laws about how money is spent if there's a third person being impacted (idk, hiring a assassin)

Of course when one of the two consenting parties does something outside of the contract (false advertising, fraud, etc.), it should also be unlawful.

Everything else someone does to limit my choices/actions I do disagree.

Re: China's Central Bank Bans ICOs

#253

Post by vocatus_gate »

anilshanbhag wrote: post #214
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…

The problem is that companies doing ICOs aren't Uber. Peek your head into /r/ethtrader. You will find people putting their retirement savings, mortgaging houses, etc and these people aren't technically savvy and can be easily taken for a ride. While you might have good apples, there are going to be tons of bad apples, people just coming with a white paper and asking for millions of dollars. Coming back to your questi…

Maybe I'm cold-hearted but I believe in something called "personal responsibility." They chose to throw their money into something they don't understand, now they get the consequences of that decision. You can be sure they'd be all about accepting the consequences of their decision if it panned out the other way and they made a fortune. I feel zero sympathy.

Re: China's Central Bank Bans ICOs

#254

Post by seanmcdirmid »

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…

Gambling is also very illegal in china.

Re: China's Central Bank Bans ICOs

#255

Post by felipeko »

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?

I'm also curious about that. If you ever find the answer, please, come back to tell me.

Re: China's Central Bank Bans ICOs

#256

Post by elefanten »

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…

One of your key premises, that investing in startups is a key / good path to getting rich, is flawed. Investing in startups is notoriously NOT that stable of an investment vehicle. If you're a small-scale enough investor to not meet accreditation rules, why would you WANT to throw 10k at a startup?

You speak in terms of rights and that's one debate to have. But evaluating the material harm in this situation, the notion that this denies upward economic mobility in a significant way seems overstated.

Re: China's Central Bank Bans ICOs

#257

Post by bryananderson »

smokeyj wrote: post #238
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…

> 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 i…

I think the issue with these regulations is that they use net worth as a proxy for an investor's qualifications. I'm not convinced that this is a good proxy.

Any grandma or grandpa who's been putting a decent amount from each paycheck into US equities for 50 years is going to be very wealthy today - but is probably not truly a "sophisticated investor". They're a prime target to get ripped off.

By contrast, a bright young software engineer a few years ago who picked up early on Airbnb or Uber could potentially be a "sophisticated investor", but would be excluded because of his or her net worth.

I really am not sure what an ideal proxy would be. I used "grandma/grandpa" and "bright young software engineer" in my example, but I don't think age or occupation would be good proxies either. Perhaps some sort of investor qualification exam?

Regardless, the completely-unregulated ICO market is a separate issue from private equity more generally. We should be careful conflating the two.

Re: China's Central Bank Bans ICOs

#258

Post by patrickaljord »

emperorcezar wrote: post #138
patrickaljord wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, what's with consenting adults freely and willingly contracting with each others. I'm glad the powers that be put an end to that madness.

Heh. This guy here thinks people are rational actors. Even in groups.

The right to act on our own irrationalities and commit our own mistakes is one of our most important right (the right to eat what you want, date who you want etc, these things used be illegal not so long ago to make sure you didn't act irrational, turns out letting people make their own choice even when irrational trumps the lack of freedom to do so because what seems irrational may actually not be and vice versa, as long as it's consensual I say live and let live).

Re: China's Central Bank Bans ICOs

#259

Post by mcguire »

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…

Most seed rounds are not Uber.

What about Quirky, Homejoy, Zirtual, Secret, Grooveshark, Rdio, Leap, Theranos, Sprig, Beepi, ...

Re: China's Central Bank Bans ICOs

#260

Post by mcguire »

rothbardrand wrote: post #227
anilshanbhag wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that companies doing ICOs aren't Uber. Peek your head into /r/ethtrader. You will find people putting their retirement savings, mortgaging houses, etc and these people aren't technically savvy and can be easily taken for a ride. While you might have good apples, there are going to be tons of bad apples, people just coming with a white paper and asking for millions of dollars. Coming back to your questi…

That's your presumption. You think they aren't technically savvy. Hell, I think some of them aren't myself, but it's not my right, and it's not your right, to say what they can or cannot do with their property. And a lot of those non-"savvy" people have outperformed me, for instance by buying ETH at the ICO. You guys keep presuming that the only choice is "people losing all their money" and that these regulations sto…

This is an excellent argument that the crime of fraud does not exist.
Post reply on HN