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

SEC Charges Kik With Conducting $100M Unregistered ICO

sec.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 343 posts

Re: SEC Charges Kik With Conducting $100M Unregistered ICO

#261

Post by CryptoPunk »

workingpatrick wrote: post #257
CryptoPunk wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yea I believe that consensual interactions, whether it's in the civil sphere, with high-risk sexual practices, or the economic sphere, with high-risk investments, should not face any government prohibition.

I'd argue that for the interaction to be truly consensual, both parties must be fully informed about the risks and rewards of the interaction that they are choosing to participate in. My reading of the SEC press release leads me to believe that the primary reason for requiring filing with the SEC for a sale of this nature is to ensure that all relevant information is available for the parties involved, thus allowing…

You don't prohibit an entire class of interactions, and then approve them on a case-by-case basis when the centralized authority deems that the interaction is consensual.

Approval-encumbered interaction is not consistent with how free society works, where people are presumed innocent, and not burdened with restrictions, until proven guilty.

Speech used to be like that. You had to get approval from the state, before being allowed to publish. This was to prevent things like libel. It was called Prior Restraint. Eventually courts ruled it violated the Freedom of Speech, and we are all vastly better for that ruling.

In practice it's also not flexible enough for innovation. It regiments only one acceptable way to establish an informed and consensual interaction, which precludes innovative new ways opened up by technology.

Re: SEC Charges Kik With Conducting $100M Unregistered ICO

#262

Post by arcticbull »

CryptoPunk wrote: post #244
colechristensen wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The regulations indeed exist because fraud in this vein was prevalent and it made it difficult to compete if you weren't defrauding investors.

Do you have any evidence for that? There are other ways of addressing fraud besides violating people's right to freely contract with other consenting adults, like punishing those who commit fraud to deter others from committing the crime, and public education campaigns. The idea that the government has a right to deem a certain class of investors as "unsophisticated", and thus better off deprived of the right to deci…

You’ve got this backwards. Anyone can sell securities to any investor if the company they’re selling shares in can commit to providing regular audited financial disclosures showing they’re not frauds. It’s on the product being brought to market to show it’s fit for sale, not for the investor to show they’re “sophisticated.” If they show they’re sophisticated they can elect to waive the reporting requirements. You could do this for your personal C Corp, it’s just a lot of overhead you may deem not a good use of capital.

Kik is choosing not to become a “public” company in that they don’t want to file disclosures. They’re trying to circumvent the rules that show they’re operating above board.

Re: SEC Charges Kik With Conducting $100M Unregistered ICO

#263

Post by jessaustin »

kibwen wrote: post #59

The same Kik from the 2016 left-pad debacle on npm?

If so, let's all stop and enjoy the schadenfreude. They bullied someone who had freely given his time and effort to the community. Perhaps he didn't react in the best way to that bullying, but Kik were the root cause of that. I hope the ill will they sowed during that episode has contributed to their troubles since then.

Re: SEC Charges Kik With Conducting $100M Unregistered ICO

#264

Post by atomical »

arcticbull wrote: post #262
CryptoPunk wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have any evidence for that? There are other ways of addressing fraud besides violating people's right to freely contract with other consenting adults, like punishing those who commit fraud to deter others from committing the crime, and public education campaigns. The idea that the government has a right to deem a certain class of investors as "unsophisticated", and thus better off deprived of the right to deci…

You’ve got this backwards. Anyone can sell securities to any investor if the company they’re selling shares in can commit to providing regular audited financial disclosures showing they’re not frauds. It’s on the product being brought to market to show it’s fit for sale, not for the investor to show they’re “sophisticated.” If they show they’re sophisticated they can elect to waive the reporting requirements. You cou…

It's more than that. They received money from "investors" without giving away any equity.

Re: SEC Charges Kik With Conducting $100M Unregistered ICO

#265

Post by arcticbull »

CryptoPunk wrote: post #250
alanh wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

not to be that guy, but… username checks out! (inb4 hn is turning into reddit)

Yea I believe that consensual interactions, whether it's in the civil sphere, with high-risk sexual practices, or the economic sphere, with high-risk investments, should not face any government prohibition.

You’re also likely the first to whine when someone “steals” your coins (not your keys, not your coins) and about how wildly unregulated the exchange that exit scammed you is. This conversation plays out regularly in pro crypto subreddits. Privatized gains, socialized losses.

Re: SEC Charges Kik With Conducting $100M Unregistered ICO

#266

Post by dnautics »

bryant wrote: post #259
CryptoPunk wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have any evidence for that? There are other ways of addressing fraud besides violating people's right to freely contract with other consenting adults, like punishing those who commit fraud to deter others from committing the crime, and public education campaigns. The idea that the government has a right to deem a certain class of investors as "unsophisticated", and thus better off deprived of the right to deci…

> The idea that the government has a right to deem a certain class of investors as "unsophisticated", and thus better off deprived of the right to decide for themselves what to invest in, and prohibit an entire class of interactions, on the basis that too many instances of that class are fraudulent, upends basic principles of liberal society. Counterpoint: The government declares which investors are savvy or not ("ac…

> If you're more likely to be preyed upon because you don't have the knowledge or connections to make more informed investment decisions and are more willing to increase the tax burden on your fellow person as a result of investment decisions gone sour, that's where the government steps in to protect the general population. As a reminder, this is one of the few responsibilities the government actually has in any society, even the most libertarian.

I don't know where you get your ideas of what libertarians are or aren't but, the general basis of libertarianism is that government gives your recourse for physical harm, defrauding via lies of commission (on principle and independent of the individual's ability to protect themselves), and typically property rights (though libertarians often disagree why). Generally the truth is considered to be an absolute defense against an accusation of fraud, and the justification of fraud is not a function of government having to 'bail people out', and in general, libertarianism does not consider it the role of government to "protect the general population". Typically, libertarians believe this under the premise that so often governments have done (and continue to do) shady things under the "guise of protecting the general population".

Re: SEC Charges Kik With Conducting $100M Unregistered ICO

#267

Post by arcticbull »

atomical wrote: post #264
arcticbull wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’ve got this backwards. Anyone can sell securities to any investor if the company they’re selling shares in can commit to providing regular audited financial disclosures showing they’re not frauds. It’s on the product being brought to market to show it’s fit for sale, not for the investor to show they’re “sophisticated.” If they show they’re sophisticated they can elect to waive the reporting requirements. You cou…

It's more than that. They received money from "investors" without giving away any equity.

Good point, I didn’t address that.

Re: SEC Charges Kik With Conducting $100M Unregistered ICO

#268

Post by sjg007 »

CryptoPunk wrote: post #244
colechristensen wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The regulations indeed exist because fraud in this vein was prevalent and it made it difficult to compete if you weren't defrauding investors.

Do you have any evidence for that? There are other ways of addressing fraud besides violating people's right to freely contract with other consenting adults, like punishing those who commit fraud to deter others from committing the crime, and public education campaigns. The idea that the government has a right to deem a certain class of investors as "unsophisticated", and thus better off deprived of the right to deci…

Same story different day: https://www.history.com/news/roaring-twenties-scams-ponzi-wa...

Re: SEC Charges Kik With Conducting $100M Unregistered ICO

#269

Post by [deleted] »

seibelj wrote: post #6
vorpalhex wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> scam ICO It seems like you might of repeated yourself... This is the cryptocurrency roosters coming home to roost, no?

Ethereum also had an ICO (paid in Bitcoin) and it delivered. Cosmos held an ICO and delivered. Not all ICOs are scams.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN