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

Statement on Cryptocurrencies and Initial Coin Offerings

sec.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 176 posts

Re: Statement on Cryptocurrencies and Initial Coin Offerings

#51

Post by forapurpose »

seibelj wrote: post #11

An incredible display of pragmatism from our regulators. Given the commentary on HN it seems that most here want everyone involved in an ICO to be thrown in jail. ICO’s are an effective way to raise funds from a global pool of enthusiasts. The Ethereum blockchain itself was funded from an ICO, and it’s doubtful that as much money would have been raised at such advantageous terms from traditional VC for a 22 year old…

> it’s doubtful that as much money would have been raised at such advantageous terms from traditional VC for a 22 year old kid ...

Why not? Isn't that the story of many wildly successful SV startups?

Re: Statement on Cryptocurrencies and Initial Coin Offerings

#52

Post by brucephillips »

seibelj wrote: post #11

An incredible display of pragmatism from our regulators. Given the commentary on HN it seems that most here want everyone involved in an ICO to be thrown in jail. ICO’s are an effective way to raise funds from a global pool of enthusiasts. The Ethereum blockchain itself was funded from an ICO, and it’s doubtful that as much money would have been raised at such advantageous terms from traditional VC for a 22 year old…

> ICO's are an effective way to raise funds from a global pool of enthusiasts.

Once they're regulated as the securities they are, what advantage do ICO's have?

Re: Statement on Cryptocurrencies and Initial Coin Offerings

#57

Post by couchdive »

dahdum wrote: post #22
couchdive wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

and probably requiring Accredited Investors only at some point, which probably 90 percent of crypto folks aren't, myself included. Accredited investors must make 200 to 300k annual (dual income allowed) and/or have 5 mill in tied up assets and/or a net worth of over 1 mill.

It's just the income or $1M net worth excluding primary residence. The $5M is for business entities.

thanks for the more detailed and accurate info!

Re: Statement on Cryptocurrencies and Initial Coin Offerings

#58

Post by wmf »

iMuzz wrote: post #43
wmf wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

But no actual tokens work that way because no one would get rich off them.

Re: Statement on Cryptocurrencies and Initial Coin Offerings

#59

Post by stale2002 »

brucephillips wrote: post #55

Can someone explain to me how his "book of the month" club example is not a security? The managerial efforts of the club managers will increase demand for participation in the club, increasing the value of the token. What am I missing?

The difference is that books already exist.

It is not about whether a token can rise or fall in value. It is about whether the token represents something that can be bought right NOW, or if it represents a future promise of some sort for something that doesn't exist yet. IE, funding book publishing in this example.

Re: Statement on Cryptocurrencies and Initial Coin Offerings

#60

Post by brucephillips »

stale2002 wrote: post #59
brucephillips wrote: post #55

Can someone explain to me how his "book of the month" club example is not a security? The managerial efforts of the club managers will increase demand for participation in the club, increasing the value of the token. What am I missing?

The difference is that books already exist. It is not about whether a token can rise or fall in value. It is about whether the token represents something that can be bought right NOW, or if it represents a future promise of some sort for something that doesn't exist yet. IE, funding book publishing in this example.

> It is not about whether a token can rise or fall in value.

Yes, it is. According to the Howey Test.

Post reply on HN