China's Central Bank Bans ICOs • Hacker News Board

Re: China's Central Bank Bans ICOs

#71

Post by ig1 » Mon, Sep 04, 2017, 10:32 AM UTC

dmichulke wrote: post #54

richardknop wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That SEC memo was weak. They should have made much more forceful statement. Thousands (likely tens of thousands) of US citizens are still investing in ICOs, there needs to be much stronger action taken to stop their gambling.

Because you and the SEC know much better than all of them? You know we're talking about the same SEC that didn't saw the real estate bubble coming in 2007/08 (size > trillions, CDOs are obviously fine) or the dotcom bubble in 2000 (size > trillions, they approved the IPOs, right)? If so, please give me reasons (instead of opinions or references to SEC "authority") as to why the ICOs in a 175 bn market are "dangerous"…

If you want to learn more about the history what you want to look for is "Blue Sky Laws" there's a brief history here:

http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?artic...

The context was unsophisticated investors were being exploited without appreciating the risks involved. They thought they were investing when they were essentially gambling and the underlying security was essentially worthless.

Re: China's Central Bank Bans ICOs

#72

Post by pmlnr » Mon, Sep 04, 2017, 10:33 AM UTC

CryptoPunk wrote: post #69

richardknop wrote: post #32

Finally somebody in position of power stepped in to stop this mad online casino. I was not expecting this sensible move from China, was hoping EU or US would lead the way on regulating this crypto fraud. I hope Fed/ECB follow the Chinese Central Bank and ban ICOs too and start regulating crypto and enforcing some basic rules.

It's not sensible at all. It's none of anyone's business what two consenting adults do with their money. The idea of a third party dictating the range of acceptable contractual engagements is absolutely terrible and has profound negative unintended consequences, with the worst of them being licensing barriers to create rent-seeking opportunities (only one new bank created in the UK over the last 100 years).

"only one new bank created in the UK over the last 100 years"?

You are quite mistaken here, from the top of my head, Tesco (late 90s) and Monzo (very recent) are 2 examples, and I'm not even into finance.

Re: China's Central Bank Bans ICOs

#73

Post by omarchowdhury » Mon, Sep 04, 2017, 10:36 AM UTC

richardknop wrote: post #59

dmichulke wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because you and the SEC know much better than all of them? You know we're talking about the same SEC that didn't saw the real estate bubble coming in 2007/08 (size > trillions, CDOs are obviously fine) or the dotcom bubble in 2000 (size > trillions, they approved the IPOs, right)? If so, please give me reasons (instead of opinions or references to SEC "authority") as to why the ICOs in a 175 bn market are "dangerous"…

My opinion is not important. The issue is lots of unsophisticated investors are betting their savings / money they can't afford to lose on cryptocurrency in hopes to flip their investment quickly and get rich. This is something which should be regulated so you can't just randomly dump your IRA/401k to buy some random cryptocurrency generated over a weekend by some person in a garage with shell company in Cayman Islan…

If someone has the knowledge to create a cryptocurrency in a weekend, in a garage, and have the foresight to operate from a friendly jurisdiction, and convinces people to buy it; then please let me know who that person is so I can invest in them. I'd love to get them out of a garage and into an office to see what they can really do.

Re: China's Central Bank Bans ICOs

#74

Post by unkown-unknowns » Mon, Sep 04, 2017, 10:37 AM UTC

Tepix wrote: post #67

unkown-unknowns wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> https://uetoken.com/ Did they actually do an "ICO" or was it showing as "finished" from the get-go? Let's find out! 30 seconds later. https://web.archive.org/web/20170627123240/https://uetoken.c... https://etherchain.org/account/0xbe5c1c298d0088886146a906cdf... So they did but apparently nobody sent them any money, unless they also used some other addresses. Another 60 seconds after that. Actually they have a link…

I think he got around $90,000 USD out of it.

Woah :O

Re: China's Central Bank Bans ICOs

#75

Post by rsynnott » Mon, Sep 04, 2017, 10:37 AM UTC

I'm amazed it's even a case of banning them; I'd just automatically assumed they were illegal basically everywhere. It's an unregulated securities market, surely?

Re: China's Central Bank Bans ICOs

#76

Post by kchoudhu » Mon, Sep 04, 2017, 10:42 AM UTC

dmichulke wrote: post #54

richardknop wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That SEC memo was weak. They should have made much more forceful statement. Thousands (likely tens of thousands) of US citizens are still investing in ICOs, there needs to be much stronger action taken to stop their gambling.

Because you and the SEC know much better than all of them? You know we're talking about the same SEC that didn't saw the real estate bubble coming in 2007/08 (size > trillions, CDOs are obviously fine) or the dotcom bubble in 2000 (size > trillions, they approved the IPOs, right)? If so, please give me reasons (instead of opinions or references to SEC "authority") as to why the ICOs in a 175 bn market are "dangerous"…

Blue sky laws exist for a reason. Go ahead and google the term.

Re: China's Central Bank Bans ICOs

#77

Post by CryptoPunk » Mon, Sep 04, 2017, 10:43 AM UTC

pmlnr wrote: post #72

CryptoPunk wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not sensible at all. It's none of anyone's business what two consenting adults do with their money. The idea of a third party dictating the range of acceptable contractual engagements is absolutely terrible and has profound negative unintended consequences, with the worst of them being licensing barriers to create rent-seeking opportunities (only one new bank created in the UK over the last 100 years).

"only one new bank created in the UK over the last 100 years"? You are quite mistaken here, from the top of my head, Tesco (late 90s) and Monzo (very recent) are 2 examples, and I'm not even into finance.

I'm basing it on this:

http://www.computerweekly.com/news/450400615/Digital-only-At...

>The bank was the brainchild of Anthony Thomson, who set up Metro Bank in 2009, which was the first new banking organisation to open in the UK since the end of the 19th century.

>In April 2016, Atom launched its banking app after regulators lifted a restriction on its authorisation.

Re: China's Central Bank Bans ICOs

#78

Post by pja » Mon, Sep 04, 2017, 10:45 AM UTC

rsynnott wrote: post #75

I'm amazed it's even a case of banning them; I'd just automatically assumed they were illegal basically everywhere. It's an unregulated securities market, surely?

Some of them are just pre-sales of whatever product the token is supposed to be about. This sort of ICO is (probably) legal: it's just a re-invention of the Green Stamps of the C20th.

And about as useful.

Re: China's Central Bank Bans ICOs

#79

Post by drcross » Mon, Sep 04, 2017, 10:47 AM UTC

lawless123 wrote: post #39

Necessary.

Just because you dont like something doesn't mean it should be illegal, what ever happened to Caveat Emptor?

Re: China's Central Bank Bans ICOs

#80

Post by ojno » Mon, Sep 04, 2017, 10:47 AM UTC

pmlnr wrote: post #72

CryptoPunk wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not sensible at all. It's none of anyone's business what two consenting adults do with their money. The idea of a third party dictating the range of acceptable contractual engagements is absolutely terrible and has profound negative unintended consequences, with the worst of them being licensing barriers to create rent-seeking opportunities (only one new bank created in the UK over the last 100 years).

"only one new bank created in the UK over the last 100 years"? You are quite mistaken here, from the top of my head, Tesco (late 90s) and Monzo (very recent) are 2 examples, and I'm not even into finance.

I think what CryptoPunk refers to is that (allegedly) Metro is the only "high street", i.e. with many physical branches, bank created in the UK in the last 100+ years.

Given we're in a thread talking about ICOs and tech startups, I would side with you and say this is an irrelevant classification and the claim is wrong. :-P

Still interesting though, but given the veritable plethora of recently founded remote-only banks of various innovativenesses, I wouldn't say excessive regulation is to blame, if we think this is a Bad Thing.