31–40 of 43 posts
There is a lot of fraud going on in the cryptocoin "IPO" space. It's strange that the SEC went after one of the cases that wasn't fraud. Maybe it was because they knew who he was. Either way they really need to crack down on these unregistered securities. People are being fleeced left and right.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not convinced a presale of a currency falls under the same regulations as equity in a company.
It definitely falls under money transmission - which could be worse as far as penalties go
But in any case, lots of Bitcoin companies successfully navigate money-transmission laws already.
Wonder what the implications are for the other companies/altcoins that go the IPO route. There are a number of well-known companies in the space that IPO without registering with the SEC, most recently MaidSafe [1] from the SAFE network that got a lot of publicity but no questions asked about the IPO (except boasting in their press release that they raised $5 million in the first 5 hours [2]) [1]: http://www.business…
I'm not convinced a presale of a currency falls under the same regulations as equity in a company.
BTC isn't a currency in US. I'm kind of curious where SEC draws the line, if any, when somebody sells some interest in some virtual artifact - say a website or a Farmville plot of land - in exchange for some other virtual artifact - say BTC or ISK.
There is a lot of fraud going on in the cryptocoin "IPO" space. It's strange that the SEC went after one of the cases that wasn't fraud. Maybe it was because they knew who he was. Either way they really need to crack down on these unregistered securities. People are being fleeced left and right.
I suspect more people are losing money on state lotteries than cryptocoin IPOs. Shouldn't enforcers go after those, first?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I suspect more people are losing money on state lotteries than cryptocoin IPOs. Shouldn't enforcers go after those, first?
I disagree with your point. IPO implies a hope for future return, whereas lotteries are gambling for entertainment.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The internet blurs the lines, though. If I was in Scotland raising money and Americans came to Scotland to invest, there would be no SEC issues (assuming I wasn't marketing to Americans; of course, this may imply qualified investors anyway). The problem is what it means to "come to Scotland" and to "market to Americans" has changed with the internet. So the question becomes how to differentiate actively courting US i…
"(assuming I wasn't marketing to Americans; of course, this may imply qualified investors anyway)" I can afford to fly to Scotland, and I am nowhere near a qualified investor...
There is a lot of fraud going on in the cryptocoin "IPO" space. It's strange that the SEC went after one of the cases that wasn't fraud. Maybe it was because they knew who he was. Either way they really need to crack down on these unregistered securities. People are being fleeced left and right.
I suspect more people are losing money on state lotteries than cryptocoin IPOs. Shouldn't enforcers go after those, first?
I too think lotteries are a little seedy, and it's a little weird how the state uses its vice regulating powers to create something of a vice monopoly to further its own ends, but surely you see how this comparison you're making is lacking in equivalence.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I disagree with your point. IPO implies a hope for future return, whereas lotteries are gambling for entertainment.
But a "cryptocoin IPO" is more like a seed round; most such investments are losses. A few have (and likely will) succeed, and quite likely at a better rate than lotteries/casinos. Why can't people choose the "entertainment with small chance of net rewards" in cryptocoin investing?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I suspect more people are losing money on state lotteries than cryptocoin IPOs. Shouldn't enforcers go after those, first?
Good god, typical coiner logic... An attempt at a fallacy of relative privation('whataboutery') that doesn't even make sense. Do you think state lotteries are being misrepresented for what they are? Putting aside people's innumeracy, do you think state lotteries fraudulently misrepresent the expected return of purchasing a ticket? I too think lotteries are a little seedy, and it's a little weird how the state uses it…
Because law and social-norm enforcement faces budgetary constraints in time/resources/attention, the (informal-not-really) "fallacy" of relative privation doesn't apply. We can only choose some activities to both demonize and punish; we should allocate that effort well.
State lotteries and state-sanctioned gambling monopolies are a lot more destructive than even dishonestly-marketed "cryptocoin IPOs" (where people know that caveat emptor applies and traditional legal recourse is difficult).
And, the enforcement action described here was against a fairly honest, successful cryptocoin venture, SatoshiDice, a far more moral operation than the California Lottery.
The SEC doesn't need to "do more", it needs to "do less". The government's limited attention, resources, and competence should be focused on crimes and fraud with real, actual victims. Not trivial violations-of-form.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But a "cryptocoin IPO" is more like a seed round; most such investments are losses. A few have (and likely will) succeed, and quite likely at a better rate than lotteries/casinos. Why can't people choose the "entertainment with small chance of net rewards" in cryptocoin investing?
Notice driverdan uses the term, fraud. Which I think means he is implying that there are instances where the business plan doesn't go much if any beyond selling shares in their fledgling startup and then calling it a day. That is a different thing entirely from buying shares in a legitimate business that subsequently fails.
It looks to me that it just changes the expression slightly, and not for net social benefit. People gamble or day-trade-on-margin or over-leverage-in-real-estate or wire-their-money-toNigerian-419-scams, when some longshots (including occasional frauds) as cryptocoin/venture investments would be no worse. And, they'd be plausibly better, because the process of aiming for business success, but still failing through misestimation, misexecution, or even malfeasance serves as valuable training for future success.
If you lose at your lottery scratcher 10 times in a row, the 11th is still an awful bet for you and society. But if you lose your investment principal 10 times, even if most of those times were total or borderline fraud, you will make usefully better choices, for yourself and society, in the 11th try.
(Or you'll just stick to other areas where you're more competent, which is fine, too.)