Its a lot of fun watching you idiots play catch up.
I made my million and then some. I'm upset with you guys, I'm here everyday and have tried talking about Bitcoin all the time, just to get shot down.
I hope you all die.
Statement on Cryptocurrencies and Initial Coin Offerings
41–50 of 176 posts
Re: Statement on Cryptocurrencies and Initial Coin Offerings
#42"In contrast, many token offerings appear to have gone beyond this construct and are more analogous to interests in a yet-to-be-built publishing house with the authors, books and distribution networks all to come." I am impressed with this SEC statement. The problem right now is with ICOs that sell tokens for something that doesn't already exist yet, as well as promise returns. Selling a token for something that does…
No ICO promises returns, you are an idiot.
Re: Statement on Cryptocurrencies and Initial Coin Offerings
#43> I believe that initial coin offerings – whether they represent offerings of securities or not – can be effective ways for entrepreneurs and others to raise funding, including for innovative projects. > We at the SEC are committed to promoting capital formation. The technology on which cryptocurrencies and ICOs are based may prove to be disruptive, transformative and efficiency enhancing. I am confident that develop…
he's saying that some of these tokens should be classified as securities, while others should not. Gotta love the unlimited supply of optimism in the cryptocurrency world. Every single existing token is either a security or a commodity, but people still think they can squeeze through the "utility token" loophole.
> Every single existing token is either a security or a commodity
My optimism could totally be misplaced! But here's an excerpt from the SEC statement that seems to go beyond your "security or commodity" classification.
> A key question for all ICO market participants: “Is the coin or token a security?” As securities law practitioners know well, the answer depends on the facts. For example, a token that represents a participation interest in a book-of-the-month club may not implicate our securities laws, and may well be an efficient way for the club’s operators to fund the future acquisition of books and facilitate the distribution of those books to token holders.
Re: Statement on Cryptocurrencies and Initial Coin Offerings
#44Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most of the benefit of doing an ICO is that investors are throwing a ton of dumb money into ICOs.
Exactly. And SEC regulations are designed to stop dumb money from going into risky investments. If you comply then you can't cash in on that dumb money and there's no point to doing an ICO.
A lot of that dumb money is being put in by wall street, so not sure you're right.
Re: Statement on Cryptocurrencies and Initial Coin Offerings
#45Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exactly. And SEC regulations are designed to stop dumb money from going into risky investments. If you comply then you can't cash in on that dumb money and there's no point to doing an ICO.
A lot of that dumb money is being put in by wall street, so not sure you're right.
This is not my impression. It seems to me that the dumb money is people who made early fortunes in crypto or regular people looking to ride the next pump and dump. If Wall Street money is coming in it's mostly to take advantage of the dumb money for a quick profit, for example by getting preferential pricing or timing so they can sell to later investors).
Re: Statement on Cryptocurrencies and Initial Coin Offerings
#46Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think that is a very considered and wide ranging statement. The proof is in the pudding though. He looks like he has called out some ICO's, but until enforcement proceedings start, it is still not clear. I can't see how any pre-mined ICO, like ripple, wouldn't be treated like a security given those statements. As a long time crypto investor, even i recognise that ico's are out of control. It is my opinion that if y…
> if you can't mine it yourself, or get someone independent from the issuer to do it for you, it's a security That's not quite right. You could say that WoW Gold is "premined". You can't "mine" it yourself, and it's only issued by World of Warcraft. Same thing with Walmart gift cards and Disney Dollars. Call it money, or tokens, or scrip, but it's not a security. If you sell it to users primarialy to transact with it…
If I’m understanding this correctly, a big difference is the potential for the value to fluctuate in relation to fiat. All of these examples are measured in denominations of US dollars. But, if these tokens are viewed as products rather than currency, therein lies another question. Is there a way to reach a conclusion on that?
Maybe I am just being pedantic, but it seems most tokens could make an argument that they are products just by the fact that they build a brand and may have a technology that differentiates them from others. I have little hands-on financial experience but the terms of abstraction by which we define what a currency consists of seems like a philosophical topic to me. I am curious how this gets resolved.
It seems cryptocurrency may offer the puzzle piece which illustrates this spectrum of abstraction to a degree which is truly painful. A year ago, I had no idea what a security is, and after reading about them for a year, I am doubting that they exist as a logically defined objective category. Like many things in finance, the concept of these securities appears to be a relative conjurement, dependent not on logical definitions but on contextual gaps of unimaginable forms of abstraction. As cryptocurrency implements the unimaginable, those gaps are filling. We will eventually face a continuum of abstraction limited to philosophies of material.
I tried to read the linked release, got about 1/5 of the way down it and was just incredibly bored. I hate to sound so lazy and will try to read it again later.
Re: Statement on Cryptocurrencies and Initial Coin Offerings
#47I wouldn’t read this with rose colored glasses. This is not pro or against crypto. He’s simply doing what the SEC does and warning speculators of the risks involved and saying that these will, despite what anyone has told you, be subject to federal securities laws.
Re: Statement on Cryptocurrencies and Initial Coin Offerings
#48This is not a statement from the SEC, but from chairman Clayton. See footnote [1]: « This statement is my own and does not reflect the views of any other Commissioner or the Commission. This statement is not, and should not be taken as, a definitive discussion of applicable law, all the relevant risks with respect to these products, or a statement of my position on any particular product. »
Something about that bothers me. Even in this thread some are discussing this as "SEC says". In a way this is a 'pump' for cryptos and that [1] footnote could have been straight up front in the "Public Statement".
Re: Statement on Cryptocurrencies and Initial Coin Offerings
#49After all this is written, you'll still find someone tryna peddle their little tokens out here!!
Re: Statement on Cryptocurrencies and Initial Coin Offerings
#50I think the rate of technological change will force the SEC regulatory system to adopt an RFC process open to the public (bypassing Congress), similar to IETF, and I think Direct Democracy is an inevitable outcome of such disruption.