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

271–280 of 386 posts

Re: China's Central Bank Bans ICOs

#271

Post by matz1 »

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…

Nobody care of your rights, if you think you deserve it you have to fight for it. What concrete action have you take to fight it ?

Re: China's Central Bank Bans ICOs

#272

Post by Taek »

lettergram wrote: post #240
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…

If Uber had made shares available to unaccredited investors, they would have gotten in trouble. I'm quite certain that the grandparent was not in the list of Travis's top 35 people to raise $10k from, and as such he had no legal opportunity to buy shares, even if Uber had wanted to sell them.

Re: China's Central Bank Bans ICOs

#273

Post by xorcist »

CryptoPunk wrote: post #177
Nursie wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah, so protecting people from scams is now banning people from their own decisions? I suppose we should drop all laws about fraud really, why should we ban people from freely transacting with "microsoft" support services who just want to help them with their computer?

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).

> There are token sales that are not scams.

This whole discussion would be much easier with an example.

I have spent quite a lot of time debating cryptocurrencies with people and explaining why they could be useful. But with ICOs I find myself on the other side of the fence. I have yet to find a white paper that isn't either useless or impossible.

> and thus doesn't meet securities regulations

In this context "doesn't meet regulations" more often than not means "we lie about what we will use the money for". I'm not sure that's a good idea.

It is impossible to be serious in a space dominated by liars as they will outcompete you every time.

Re: China's Central Bank Bans ICOs

#274

Post by jcfrei »

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…

Regulation is only on the surface about investor protection. The main driver is usually taxation (only what's regulated can be taxed). If these investment schemes become too liquid allowing anyone to invest in anything in large sums, tax evasion and tax fraud become even harder for authorities to track (especially since there's no legal framework for ICOs - and creating those takes time). As many others have pointed out, there's no legislation that will hold you back investing in the companies behind these ICOs in one way or another. Just talk to the founders, ask them to sell you some shares and you're good to go. But then there's a well established track record when you buy and transfer shares (for example in the books of the company that sold you the shares). The same is not (yet) true for ICOs.

Re: China's Central Bank Bans ICOs

#275

Post by kabbalf »

3pt14159 wrote: post #249
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…

We tried libertarianism. It doesn't work. I realize the futility of trying to explain this to someone with the username "rothbardrand" but I used to be a libertarian and I finally broke out of it, so maybe this will give someone else teetering on the edge some things to think about. 1. Libertarianism sweeps negative externalities under the rug. Air quality, noise pollution, the costs to society when an elderly person…

It's interesting that you give Switzerland as an example since many would regard it as the most libertarian country today. Could you imagine this [2] happening in the US?

Public spending to GDP ratio [1]:

  Sweden      51
  US          42
  Canada      42
  Switzerland 34
When the Swedish welfare state has collapsed (I'm Swedish, and it's not looking good) you are welcome back to the small government camp :).

No 1 is a good argument against libertarianism. A counter-argument is that more libertarian-style decentralized decision-making would mitigate negative externalities and the "common good tragedy". Research suggests [3] that negative externalities can be managed in smaller communities; smaller government also makes it harder for parasitic organisations to suck out money. Pollution can also be taken care of in the court system rather than regulation.

Before advancing an "how would X work?" argument, you should consider whether X really works better in other systems. Last time I checked, there was a ton of flooded houses in Houston, plenty of people smoke, and there is quite a bit of organized crime (a popular one in Sweden is "assistance compensation" paid out by the government to people who take care of sick relatives at home. Who would ever think about abusing it?? Surely not the mafia and IS). No-one is claiming that liberty will produce a perfect world, but that it's the morally right thing. As a bonus it would also likely produce better outcomes (on average) than what we have today.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_spending#As_a_perce...

[2]: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jul/18/switzerland-pu...

[3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elinor_Ostrom

Re: China's Central Bank Bans ICOs

#276

Post by mcguire »

rothbardrand wrote: post #154
samsonradu wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because when the whole system collapses due to gigantic bubbles explodind (caused by the lesser financially educated masses) the government will likely use your tax money to keeps thing afloat and you won't like that either. Your money only has value in an economically stable context.

First off, bubbles are a side effect of the money cycle which is created by central banking -- both the Dotcom and 2008 bubbles were created by the Fed selling money below cost, building a massive carry trade in, for instance, houses. Secondly, if there is a crash, the best thing to do is nothing. Let the people who invested poorly get wiped out-- it's better for the economy. (There are examples of this too- crashes…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1819

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1837

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1857

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1873

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1884 (bonus https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depression_of_1882-85)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1893

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1896

Re: China's Central Bank Bans ICOs

#277

Post by mcguire »

Nursie wrote: post #172
CryptoPunk wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would dispute that either of these justify banning people from making decisions for themselves on what to spend/invest their money in. If people really don't want the responsibility of freedom we can bring back indentured servitude, where people sign away their rights.

Ah, so protecting people from scams is now banning people from their own decisions? I suppose we should drop all laws about fraud really, why should we ban people from freely transacting with "microsoft" support services who just want to help them with their computer?

Can Libertarianism Sustain a Fraud Standard? (https://www.jstor.org/stable/2382215)

Re: China's Central Bank Bans ICOs

#278

Post by cloakandswagger »

skummetmaelk wrote: post #264
patrickaljord wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe in freedom of association, I also believe that the market is driven by reputation, therefor bad actors (in this case scammers) cannot thrive (see how bad vendors get eliminated by the market on ebay or amazon without government help, just bad reputation).

I think people like you should try eating food produced by unregulated companies and see how you like it. Enjoy your sawdust bread.

I buy bread from a farmer's market some weekends. It's made by one guy in his home kitchen who isn't accredited or regulated in any way.

By your approximation I should be dead by now. The salient point is that it's my human right to associate with whomever I please.

Re: China's Central Bank Bans ICOs

#279

Post by Nursie »

Zarath wrote: post #216
verroq wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because these "fools" once they run out of money will be out on streets taking social security. Then it becomes our problem again.

Isn't moral hazard awesome?

Yup, it is. Without something akin to moral hazard, we'd have a much more risk averse society, much slower economy etc.

We'd also have hoards of people starving in the street, as humans are not good at long term planning, or risk assessment.

So yeah, I'm all for "moral hazard".

Re: China's Central Bank Bans ICOs

#280

Post by kabbalf »

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…

Time will tell whether the system is more or less robust with Dodd Frank. Also the previous system seemed robust until the crash happened. An argument could be made that more legislation and onerous regulation pushes smaller actors out of the game. Then you end up with a bunch of too-big-to-fail corporations that take the whole system down if they fail. Regulatory capture is also a major issue with too big entities.

Reading tip: Antifragile by Nassim Nicholas Taleb

Post reply on HN