3 ms·

Actually not at all different in practice. It's different in THEORY but actually almost identical in practice. In theory, SNAP stock is legally classified as a

Actually not at all different in practice. It's different in THEORY but actually almost identical in practice. In theory, SNAP stock is legally classified as a security and recognized by the United States government as providing some kind of weird, abstract ownership of the Snap Inc organization (although all classical markers of ownership are not present in the stock). In practice, my post was pointing out it's basically as bad or even worse than a token.

alexasmyths 9y ago
It's not remotely 'identical' in practice. Kik can do whatever they want with their currency, there's no oversight, no transparency, no nothing. ----> The whole point of doing an ICO instead of an IPO is because they can paper over and gloss over issues, avoid regulation and transparency, and take advantage of wide-eyed and under-informed speculators. It's just a way to leverage over individuals keen to make it big on speculative mania. If Kik were in a position to do an IPO - they would. But they can't. Because they are slowly dying, and have almost no revenues. That doesn't sound like a good position to be in. So how could they possibly raise money otherwise without a lot of smoke and mirrors? Why not simply 'raise a bunch of USD' and then 'pay developers' some of that USD - instead of fabricated coins? Because the terms of an ICO to them vis-a-vis 'investors' are incredibly better. Yes - an argument could be made that 'regulations are onerous and limiting and create undue friction' - and that's on some level a good point. But this won't end well in the long run. These ICO's are speculative mania. They'll be a 'good investment' for some, but there's nary any actual value being created. ICO's are 99% a 'net zero gain' scheme whereby a lot of money changes hands - and it will go from 'dumb uniformed people to smart, informed, empowered and slightly greedy' people. The only long-run winner for these things are the Hedge Funds getting in early, backing the ICOs, and then dumping their positions over time. ICO's are not a financial innovation. You can't create value out of thin air.
JackFr 9y ago
It's not weird or abstract. It's totally concrete -- the markers of ownership (dividend, voting rights) are missing but there is still ownership of the enterprise. If SNAP is sold, they are entitled to their share.

alexasmyths 9y ago

It's not remotely 'identical' in practice. Kik can do whatever they want with their currency, there's no oversight, no transparency, no nothing. ----> The whole point of doing an ICO instead of an IPO is because they can paper over and gloss over issues, avoid regulation and transparency, and take advantage of wide-eyed and under-informed speculators. It's just a way to leverage over individuals keen to make it big on speculative mania. If Kik were in a position to do an IPO - they would. But they can't. Because they are slowly dying, and have almost no revenues. That doesn't sound like a good position to be in. So how could they possibly raise money otherwise without a lot of smoke and mirrors? Why not simply 'raise a bunch of USD' and then 'pay developers' some of that USD - instead of fabricated coins? Because the terms of an ICO to them vis-a-vis 'investors' are incredibly better. Yes - an argument could be made that 'regulations are onerous and limiting and create undue friction' - and that's on some level a good point. But this won't end well in the long run. These ICO's are speculative mania. They'll be a 'good investment' for some, but there's nary any actual value being created. ICO's are 99% a 'net zero gain' scheme whereby a lot of money changes hands - and it will go from 'dumb uniformed people to smart, informed, empowered and slightly greedy' people. The only long-run winner for these things are the Hedge Funds getting in early, backing the ICOs, and then dumping their positions over time. ICO's are not a financial innovation. You can't create value out of thin air.

JackFr 9y ago

It's not weird or abstract. It's totally concrete -- the markers of ownership (dividend, voting rights) are missing but there is still ownership of the enterprise. If SNAP is sold, they are entitled to their share.