4 ms·

> What is an "unregulated company"? Something like a DAO contract that doesn't have an issuer (assuming the DAO had an issuer, not sure). Or a payout mechanism

> What is an "unregulated company"? Something like a DAO contract that doesn't have an issuer (assuming the DAO had an issuer, not sure). Or a payout mechanism like zcash where the mining function pays out to founders wallets over time. It seems inconsistent that ICOs are seen as securities whereas the underlying asset isn't. I think the differentiating factor is the degree of decentralization. If the SEC could shut down bitcoin they would. But they can't. So instead they'll go after ICO issuers who happen to be in the US. But many ICOs won't have to be in the US, or issued by humans for that matter. Personally, the genie is out of the bottle. Value exists in the decentralized digital world, and it now has programmable properties. Trying to regulate securities has become the equivalent of regulating TCP packets. It can be done but at what cost..

amluto 9y ago
> It seems inconsistent that ICOs are seen as securities whereas the underlying asset isn't. I'm not sure why this would be inconsistent. I admit there's some confusion in the boundary between securities and commodities, but one can certainly have a hedge fund made up from currency or gold futures (neither of which is a security) and have ownership interest in the fund be a security. (IANAL, none of this is intended to be advice or taken as authoritative.) > But many ICO won't have to be ... issued by humans If AIs are issuing ICOs, then I would imagine they would have to obey the law just like anyone else. Heck, very few if any securities are issued by humans -- they're mostly issued by corporations.
- smokeyj 9y ago
  > I'm not sure why this would be inconsistent You could also think of bitcoin as an ICO. There's 21 million tokens that Satoshi sold, that people purchased with the expectation of profiting from. Boom, it's a security. If the financing model of a traditional blockchain is okay, but issuing tokens are not.. then programmers are about to get very creative with how get around loopholes. > But many ICO won't have to be ... issued by humans I mean the contract will be written by a person. But instead of having a central "issuer" (like a core team) the issuing mechanism is automated via the contract on the blockchain.

amluto 9y ago

> It seems inconsistent that ICOs are seen as securities whereas the underlying asset isn't. I'm not sure why this would be inconsistent. I admit there's some confusion in the boundary between securities and commodities, but one can certainly have a hedge fund made up from currency or gold futures (neither of which is a security) and have ownership interest in the fund be a security. (IANAL, none of this is intended to be advice or taken as authoritative.) > But many ICO won't have to be ... issued by humans If AIs are issuing ICOs, then I would imagine they would have to obey the law just like anyone else. Heck, very few if any securities are issued by humans -- they're mostly issued by corporations.

smokeyj 9y ago
> I'm not sure why this would be inconsistent You could also think of bitcoin as an ICO. There's 21 million tokens that Satoshi sold, that people purchased with the expectation of profiting from. Boom, it's a security. If the financing model of a traditional blockchain is okay, but issuing tokens are not.. then programmers are about to get very creative with how get around loopholes. > But many ICO won't have to be ... issued by humans I mean the contract will be written by a person. But instead of having a central "issuer" (like a core team) the issuing mechanism is automated via the contract on the blockchain.