3 ms·

Of course you are correct. Almost nobody is an informed, rational actor in the fullest sense. However, it's my view that the state ought to view people as such,

by darawk 9y ago

Of course you are correct. Almost nobody is an informed, rational actor in the fullest sense. However, it's my view that the state ought to view people as such, because to do otherwise is a fundamental violation of human rights (my view of human rights, that is).

mmalone 9y ago
Still easy to argue that no rational person would do x, therefore x should not be allowed. Really I think it's just too hard to scale the protections and legal mechanisms. ICO solves some (not all) of the scalability problems.
abecedarius 9y ago
I basically agree. It's unjust that anyone can go broke in Vegas but only rich or connected people can get a chance at pre-IPO returns. I'd support the accredited-investor thing more if it were more like you had to pass a financial rationality test and wait through a cooling-off period. It'd be undignified, but how about an official SEC qualifying poker league?
- darawk 9y ago
  Ya, I think a financial literacy test could be appropriate, although that's not my preferred solution. I'd prefer it all be mediated by civil law. That is, everyone is free to do what they will: create financial products, purchase financial products. But the court system would intervene in cases of clear deceit, or manipulation of naivete (obviously there's some subjectivity here, but I think that's ok).
  - abecedarius 9y ago
    I lean the same way, though the critics do have a point and I could see compromising on it.
vertex-four 9y ago
The issue, of course, is that when people inevitably start losing the entirety of their savings in a fraudulent "investment", either the state is left picking up the tab or we wind up with a starving, homeless elderly population. Neither are acceptable outcomes, in my opinion.
- darawk 9y ago
  Where is your evidence that the lack of this regulation would lead to that outcome? Plenty of countries don't have these regulations. Most, in fact. Europeans and Canadians have no legal problems participating in these ICOs. Perhaps I simply haven't heard about the massive elderly starvation problem it's causing over there.
  - vertex-four 9y ago
    Most people have no idea that ICOs exist, so no, ICOs right now are unlikely to cause a problem. Also, the EU has plenty of securities regulations, just because nobody's decided whether they apply to an ICO yet doens't mean they don't exist. At least some subset of ICOs likely are securities under EU regulation. ICOs, penny stocks, and other scams being advertised in the cash4gold shops with a pushy salesperson? Yes, that'd be a problem, and the obvious result of no regulation.
    - darawk 9y ago
      Cash 4 gold stores exist now (and are everywhere in cities). Penny stocks exist now. Where is the deluge of poverty stricken elders? This idea that the government needs to protect people from these things just isn't borne out by evidence. If there are no regulations, will there be scams? Yes, absolutely. And that's ok. Sometimes people will get scammed. Culture will adapt to educate people about it.
      - vertex-four 9y ago
        You're entirely misreading my comment. Yes, cash4gold stores exist now, no, they don't push penny stocks or ICOs on people, as much as they (and CEX, BrightHouse, etc) would no doubt like to. There's nowhere on the high street you can go to be told that you should be buying penny stocks - and there would be without regulation restricting them from doing so. And it'd all work wonderfully until it didn't. Gambling establishments are properly labelled and regulated as such for a reason. In the EU, there are a lot of regulations around marketing securities to inexperienced investors, and if you screw up, you are liable.

by darawk 9y ago

mmalone 9y ago

Still easy to argue that no rational person would do x, therefore x should not be allowed. Really I think it's just too hard to scale the protections and legal mechanisms. ICO solves some (not all) of the scalability problems.

abecedarius 9y ago

I basically agree. It's unjust that anyone can go broke in Vegas but only rich or connected people can get a chance at pre-IPO returns. I'd support the accredited-investor thing more if it were more like you had to pass a financial rationality test and wait through a cooling-off period. It'd be undignified, but how about an official SEC qualifying poker league?

darawk 9y ago
Ya, I think a financial literacy test could be appropriate, although that's not my preferred solution. I'd prefer it all be mediated by civil law. That is, everyone is free to do what they will: create financial products, purchase financial products. But the court system would intervene in cases of clear deceit, or manipulation of naivete (obviously there's some subjectivity here, but I think that's ok).
- abecedarius 9y ago
  I lean the same way, though the critics do have a point and I could see compromising on it.

vertex-four 9y ago

The issue, of course, is that when people inevitably start losing the entirety of their savings in a fraudulent "investment", either the state is left picking up the tab or we wind up with a starving, homeless elderly population. Neither are acceptable outcomes, in my opinion.

darawk 9y ago
Where is your evidence that the lack of this regulation would lead to that outcome? Plenty of countries don't have these regulations. Most, in fact. Europeans and Canadians have no legal problems participating in these ICOs. Perhaps I simply haven't heard about the massive elderly starvation problem it's causing over there.
- vertex-four 9y ago
  Most people have no idea that ICOs exist, so no, ICOs right now are unlikely to cause a problem. Also, the EU has plenty of securities regulations, just because nobody's decided whether they apply to an ICO yet doens't mean they don't exist. At least some subset of ICOs likely are securities under EU regulation. ICOs, penny stocks, and other scams being advertised in the cash4gold shops with a pushy salesperson? Yes, that'd be a problem, and the obvious result of no regulation.
  - darawk 9y ago
    Cash 4 gold stores exist now (and are everywhere in cities). Penny stocks exist now. Where is the deluge of poverty stricken elders? This idea that the government needs to protect people from these things just isn't borne out by evidence. If there are no regulations, will there be scams? Yes, absolutely. And that's ok. Sometimes people will get scammed. Culture will adapt to educate people about it.
    - vertex-four 9y ago
      You're entirely misreading my comment. Yes, cash4gold stores exist now, no, they don't push penny stocks or ICOs on people, as much as they (and CEX, BrightHouse, etc) would no doubt like to. There's nowhere on the high street you can go to be told that you should be buying penny stocks - and there would be without regulation restricting them from doing so. And it'd all work wonderfully until it didn't. Gambling establishments are properly labelled and regulated as such for a reason. In the EU, there are a lot of regulations around marketing securities to inexperienced investors, and if you screw up, you are liable.