6 ms·

I suggest that. Not forever but until there can be a framework in place about the minimum information required to be given to potential investors. A lot of ico

by redorb 9y ago

I suggest that. Not forever but until there can be a framework in place about the minimum information required to be given to potential investors. A lot of ico's are pure scams; banning them upfront would limit the number of investors to those who are willing to break the law.

CryptoPunk 9y ago
It should be Buyer Beware, with only those convicted of engaging in fraud facing legal restrictions. No one is forced to invest their cryptocurrency into these token sales. A blanket ban on an entire category of digital information/value exchange, which effectively punishes millions of people in the name of preempting scams, is busy bodies sticking their nose where it doesn't belong, to control the actions of their fellow citizens to an extent that they have no right to. Emulating the Chinese government, which rules a country with a much less developed tradition of civil liberties than the West, would be a giant move backwards.
- bostik 9y ago
  > Buyer Beware Careful there. The origins of that expression come from old Rome, "Caveat Emptor". A culture whose pantheon had a common deity for merchants and thieves. And while we are on the topic of legalised robbery: every time you see someone discourage regulation in the name of "giving the consumer a choice", keep in mind that they are most likely thinking about a more elaborate Hobson's choice.[0] 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hobson%27s_choice https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hobson%27s_choice
  - CryptoPunk 9y ago
    Losing money on a bad cryptocurrency or token investment is a rite of passage that provides an invaluable learning experience to a budding cryptocurrency investor. On that note, children that are overly sheltered grow up to have problems as adults. The same applies to the investing public. And on top of that, they're not children. It's their right, as adults, to do with their own money what they wish. Disclosure and false advertising regulations, like what applies to herbal supplements, are fine, as they directly address fraud. The centralization of the securities industry, with IPO-related registration requirements, and onerous and privacy-compromising regulations that have to be met for any securities purchase, is not fine. I understand that most tokens don't qualify as securities, and thus won't be affected by SEC regulations, but that doesn't change the fact that securities regulations have a direct and profound negative effect on personal rights, and set a dangerous precedent for far more of the same.
    - TeMPOraL 9y ago
      There are two sides of the issue. One is gullible people who lose money. The others are frauds who gain it. I don't think that the society should in any way encourage becoming an asshole who preys on other people's stupidity.
      - CryptoPunk 9y ago
        Fraud should absolutely be punished. There are real fraudsters in every industry, especially cryptocurrency, and it would be great to see government resources spent going after them. But creating a centralized gatekeeper, and applying Prior Restraint to anyone that hasn't registered and been approved by that gatekeeper, is not a proportionate and just strategy for combating scams. It's preemptive and punishing to innocent people.
        TeMPOraL 9y ago
        You're right in general. But in this case, where as far as I can tell, north of 90% of ICOs are scams[0], preemptive measures are warranted. -- [0] - This I base on personal observation sample. The only ICO I've seen so far that clearly wasn't a scam was Filecoin, which was notable for trying to be as legally compliant as possible. Also, the majority of interest in ICOs I witnessed was of a get-rich-quick kind.
        CryptoPunk 9y ago
        Maybe we're defining 'scam' differently. I take it to mean a premeditated act of defrauding people by embezzling funds that were received under the pretenses of being spent on development. I think 90% of projects are poorly planned and reckless expenditures of capital, and will fail. But none of those qualities make them scams. The people organizing said token sales will destroy their own reputation, and no amount of money is worth a person's reputation. A portion of these people will end up attempting to run away with the cryptocurrency they received from investors, and these people, and only these people, should be pursued by legal authorities. In terms of regulations, I wouldn't mind some generic disclosure requirements for token sale websites, like a simple warning about the highly experimental nature of cryptocurrency and speculative nature of investments in them, but a blanket ban, or a blanket prior restraint type restriction on anything unregistered and unapproved by a centralized gatekeeper? It would be terrible for basic internet rights IMHO, will create a largely counterproductive witch hunt against token sale promoters that will push them further underground where they're less accountable, and will prevent innovation that will produce orders of magnitude more value than the value lost on poor token investments.
  - jaekwon 9y ago
    What a load of manure. No-one should have to break the law to bootstrap a crypto network with likeminded people. We reserve the freedom to associate.

by redorb 9y ago

CryptoPunk 9y ago

It should be Buyer Beware, with only those convicted of engaging in fraud facing legal restrictions. No one is forced to invest their cryptocurrency into these token sales. A blanket ban on an entire category of digital information/value exchange, which effectively punishes millions of people in the name of preempting scams, is busy bodies sticking their nose where it doesn't belong, to control the actions of their fellow citizens to an extent that they have no right to. Emulating the Chinese government, which rules a country with a much less developed tradition of civil liberties than the West, would be a giant move backwards.

bostik 9y ago
> Buyer Beware Careful there. The origins of that expression come from old Rome, "Caveat Emptor". A culture whose pantheon had a common deity for merchants and thieves. And while we are on the topic of legalised robbery: every time you see someone discourage regulation in the name of "giving the consumer a choice", keep in mind that they are most likely thinking about a more elaborate Hobson's choice.[0] 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hobson%27s_choice https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hobson%27s_choice
- CryptoPunk 9y ago
  Losing money on a bad cryptocurrency or token investment is a rite of passage that provides an invaluable learning experience to a budding cryptocurrency investor. On that note, children that are overly sheltered grow up to have problems as adults. The same applies to the investing public. And on top of that, they're not children. It's their right, as adults, to do with their own money what they wish. Disclosure and false advertising regulations, like what applies to herbal supplements, are fine, as they directly address fraud. The centralization of the securities industry, with IPO-related registration requirements, and onerous and privacy-compromising regulations that have to be met for any securities purchase, is not fine. I understand that most tokens don't qualify as securities, and thus won't be affected by SEC regulations, but that doesn't change the fact that securities regulations have a direct and profound negative effect on personal rights, and set a dangerous precedent for far more of the same.
  - TeMPOraL 9y ago
    There are two sides of the issue. One is gullible people who lose money. The others are frauds who gain it. I don't think that the society should in any way encourage becoming an asshole who preys on other people's stupidity.
    - CryptoPunk 9y ago
      Fraud should absolutely be punished. There are real fraudsters in every industry, especially cryptocurrency, and it would be great to see government resources spent going after them. But creating a centralized gatekeeper, and applying Prior Restraint to anyone that hasn't registered and been approved by that gatekeeper, is not a proportionate and just strategy for combating scams. It's preemptive and punishing to innocent people.
      - TeMPOraL 9y ago
        You're right in general. But in this case, where as far as I can tell, north of 90% of ICOs are scams[0], preemptive measures are warranted. -- [0] - This I base on personal observation sample. The only ICO I've seen so far that clearly wasn't a scam was Filecoin, which was notable for trying to be as legally compliant as possible. Also, the majority of interest in ICOs I witnessed was of a get-rich-quick kind.
        CryptoPunk 9y ago
        Maybe we're defining 'scam' differently. I take it to mean a premeditated act of defrauding people by embezzling funds that were received under the pretenses of being spent on development. I think 90% of projects are poorly planned and reckless expenditures of capital, and will fail. But none of those qualities make them scams. The people organizing said token sales will destroy their own reputation, and no amount of money is worth a person's reputation. A portion of these people will end up attempting to run away with the cryptocurrency they received from investors, and these people, and only these people, should be pursued by legal authorities. In terms of regulations, I wouldn't mind some generic disclosure requirements for token sale websites, like a simple warning about the highly experimental nature of cryptocurrency and speculative nature of investments in them, but a blanket ban, or a blanket prior restraint type restriction on anything unregistered and unapproved by a centralized gatekeeper? It would be terrible for basic internet rights IMHO, will create a largely counterproductive witch hunt against token sale promoters that will push them further underground where they're less accountable, and will prevent innovation that will produce orders of magnitude more value than the value lost on poor token investments.
- jaekwon 9y ago
  What a load of manure. No-one should have to break the law to bootstrap a crypto network with likeminded people. We reserve the freedom to associate.