Live data from Hacker News

Initial Coin Offerings Horrify a Former S.E.C. Regulator

nytimes.com

81–90 of 194 posts

Re: Initial Coin Offerings Horrify a Former S.E.C. Regulator

#81

The idea of accredited investors horrifies me. The only way to get rich by investing is to get in early when the valuation is very low. These type of rules guarantee that only people already rich will be able to get in early. The reason cryptocurrencies & ICOs are popular is they let anyone speculate and day trade.

I agree there should be a competency exemption to the SEC's "accredited investor" requirement [1]. FINRA already loves administering exams [2].

That said, contrast the S&L crisis [3] with Bernie Madoff's fraud [4]. The former lost $160 billion of regular Joes' money (along with wealthy investors'). $132 billion of taxpayer money had to be spent, alongside countless hours of regulators', judges' and lawmakers' time, again, on the public dime. A minor political crisis started (and subsided).

With the latter, $70 billion was lost (though it might have been as "small" as $20 billion). Prosecutors and judges still got involved, but fines repaid their efforts. Systemic effects were largely contained.

TL; DR We restrict the masses from illiquid investments procured through irregular channels because (1) the legal costs of diligence preclude small investments, meaning small investors either invest at a material disadvantage or invest too much (relative to their worth) and (2) the lower your worth, the higher the probability that a busted investment will lose you your shirt. That turns a financial problem into a de-stabilising political problem.

Side note: early-stage investing isn't as profitable, on a risk-adjusted basis, as it might seem if one only counts the winners.

[1] https://www.sec.gov/fast-answers/answers-accredhtm.html

[2] http://www.finra.org/industry/qualification-exams

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

[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Madoff#Size_of_loss_to...

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. This is not legal, nor any other kind, of advice. Consult an investment adviser and a securities lawyer before making risky investments.

Re: Initial Coin Offerings Horrify a Former S.E.C. Regulator

#82

The funny thing about ICOs is that anyone in the world can invest anonymously AND GET PAID BACK anonymously even if they have no money, don't have a bank account, are a fugitive, in Iran or North Korea, are in prison, have unpaid child support obligations, have large unpaid IRS tax liabilities, or government fines and penalties or are using stolen funds. All the little knobs and levers that governments use to financi…

Yes! This is a great example of how costly regulation actually is. I am horrified at the SEC, not at ICO's. Figure how all that moeny could be going, for example, to YC startups, for a fraction of what they give investors.

Each and every one of these regulations exist for a very good reason though. Sure, some of them could use tweaking or reviewing, but throwing then all out at once is no different than gutting the EPA.

Re: Initial Coin Offerings Horrify a Former S.E.C. Regulator

#83
post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is allowed that horrifies you?

Robert Reich's "Saving Capitalism" documentary on Netflix does a pretty good job to answer this question. TLDR; Wall Street is part of an industrial/political system that extols "free market" capitalism, publicly, when in fact, "free markets" and "free market meritocracy" is a myth, and they know it. Privately, these same people hire lobbyists and otherwise influence the political system to craft regulation & policy…

I wouldn't say that's totally wrong... but does it follow that, therefore, there should be no regulation whatsoever? That has negative consequences too.

Re: Initial Coin Offerings Horrify a Former S.E.C. Regulator

#84
post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most ICOs look like fairly blatant fraud. We have laws to protect people from even subtler forms of fraud. The fact that they allow this stuff to continue is as amazing to me as some of the scams going on.

Before they can stop it, they need to learn enough to learn how to correctly characterize it, without hitting non-fraud in the process. That's easy to do in an HN comment box, with nothing at stake if you get something wrong, and all the ambiguity of English working for you. It's somewhat harder to do when you require legal precision and are interacting with trillions of dollars worth of existing market.

I agree with you, however, why not stop it all immediately and then work through it case by case, creating a definition along the way? By allowing it to go on, the problem simply becomes worse and worse, and more money gets tied up.

I ask this genuinely because I am not familiar with the philosophical aspects of law. I understand that regulators would rather not take an action to harm someone innocent, but it seems to me that they strongly prefer that over taking an action that prevents harm to many people.

Re: Initial Coin Offerings Horrify a Former S.E.C. Regulator

#85

The idea of accredited investors horrifies me. The only way to get rich by investing is to get in early when the valuation is very low. These type of rules guarantee that only people already rich will be able to get in early. The reason cryptocurrencies & ICOs are popular is they let anyone speculate and day trade.

Speculate and day trade, just like 1999! Only it's people talking about their cryptocoins instead of their AOL.

I wonder how many people from that era survived ahead or at least intact vs. losing a packet. I assume some lucked into bailing at the right time but I'm guessing not a lot.

I'm not sure I'd have expected to see day trading touted as an investing approach that should be encouraged.

Re: Initial Coin Offerings Horrify a Former S.E.C. Regulator

#86

The funny thing about ICOs is that anyone in the world can invest anonymously AND GET PAID BACK anonymously even if they have no money, don't have a bank account, are a fugitive, in Iran or North Korea, are in prison, have unpaid child support obligations, have large unpaid IRS tax liabilities, or government fines and penalties or are using stolen funds. All the little knobs and levers that governments use to financi…

The best case scenario is that any regular person with an internet connection and a small initial amount of capital can experience venture capital style returns. Since the most recent trend is for growing startups to delay longer and longer before going public, this is potentially a way to level the playing field, since very few people can actually invest in pre-IPO companies.

Re: Initial Coin Offerings Horrify a Former S.E.C. Regulator

#87
post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why dont we regulate everything like that. Why do we allow people to spend 2M$ on a Car or 6k$ on a bag? Why do we allow people to buy unlimited lottery tickets or gamble everything away in the casino? Those examples have cleary less benefit for society then the dumbest investment strategy. Let people invest, sure tons if people will lose their shirt but they will learn from it and stay away. Everyone else in the soc…

> Why do we allow people to spend 2M$ on a Car or 6k$ on a bag? Soviet Union famously regulated this very well. These luxury goods were only available to accredited investors aka the Party elite. It seems to me that back then this behavior was condemned by the people of the Land of the Free.

The party elite wasn't particularly rich compared to other countries; that was one reason they went to a new oligarchical system. c.f. https://img.huffingtonpost.com/asset/5994af682700003100d4f5f...

Re: Initial Coin Offerings Horrify a Former S.E.C. Regulator

#88

The idea of accredited investors horrifies me. The only way to get rich by investing is to get in early when the valuation is very low. These type of rules guarantee that only people already rich will be able to get in early. The reason cryptocurrencies & ICOs are popular is they let anyone speculate and day trade.

+1000 This is right on the mark. Remove accredited investor requirements, and all that money will go to better options, like for example, YC startups. Nothing could do more damage to the investor monopolies of the world than opening this funding venue.

Accredited investors requirement is what allows one not to be a subject to Blue Sky laws. We did not have it before Blue Sky laws were added. Let me assure you civilized societies need to have a separation between 82 year old grandma Suzi and Paris Hilton.

Re: Initial Coin Offerings Horrify a Former S.E.C. Regulator

#89

The idea of accredited investors horrifies me. The only way to get rich by investing is to get in early when the valuation is very low. These type of rules guarantee that only people already rich will be able to get in early. The reason cryptocurrencies & ICOs are popular is they let anyone speculate and day trade.

Accredited investor regulations horrifies me too. People should be free to do what they want with their money, and teaching people how to be a responsible investor makes more sense than removing their freedom to invest =\

I'd be in favor of needing to take a course on investment in order to be accredited, but having income requirements is bullshit and absolutely lends to making the rich richer and keeping the poor poor.

Re: Initial Coin Offerings Horrify a Former S.E.C. Regulator

#90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes! This is a great example of how costly regulation actually is. I am horrified at the SEC, not at ICO's. Figure how all that moeny could be going, for example, to YC startups, for a fraction of what they give investors.

Each and every one of these regulations exist for a very good reason though. Sure, some of them could use tweaking or reviewing, but throwing then all out at once is no different than gutting the EPA.

> Each and every one of these regulations exist for a very good reason though.

Any self-made software engineer with 5-10 years working at startups doesn't have the legal capacity to buy stocks in the company he works at.

Think that as an investor, this rule eliminates 95% of your competition. As a founder, you have a much weaker position of negotiation. And as an employee, you have incredibly distorting restrictions of what you can get and how much because of this rule.

All harmful regulations exist for very good reasons.

Post reply on HN