4 ms·

It's being reinvented. It's called an initial coin offering. And now I shall drown in downvotes. I'll redeem my self with a non paywall explanation of Social C

It's being reinvented. It's called an initial coin offering. And now I shall drown in downvotes. I'll redeem my self with a non paywall explanation of Social Capital's S-1 filing: https://www.recode.net/2017/8/23/16194374/social-capital-investment-firm-banks-ipo-public https://www.recode.net/2017/8/23/16194374/social-capital-inv...

wslh 9y ago
I think it is something more in between. Currently ICOs don't protect investors in any way. One financial sandbox alternative is to enable capped ICOs to offer securities for real startups. I am tired of utility tokens without too much utility and great speculation.
- ringaroundthetx 9y ago
  > I think it is something more in between. Yes. One which addresses the unique aspects of the technology, adds consumer and investor protections, and acknowledges the liquidity benefits of an inevitable secondary market which no gatekeeper can prevent. > One financial sandbox alternative is to enable capped ICOs to offer securities for real startups. And not this.
  - wslh 9y ago
    > And not this. Why not?
    - ringaroundthetx 9y ago
      securities for real startups most likely means equities in real startups, which comes with the illiquidity burden that people just don't want. a totally roundabout way of using tokenized assets at all
      - charlesdm 9y ago
        Not if they are tradable and (semi) liquid? Isn't that the whole point, to raise capital through an ICO + eventually make said tokens (representing equity) tradable from the start, so you have liquidity?
        omarchowdhury 9y ago
        Yeah, I don't understand why he's contradicting himself.
        ringaroundthetx 9y ago
        Do you two understand securities laws? So properly registered startup securities cannot be traded on properly registered securities exchanges. If they are not properly registered and only sold to accredited investors, then they can only trade OTC to accredited investors. The costs of registering to trade on properly registered securities exchanges are too high for startups. The ongoing costs of transparency for publicly traded securities are too high for startups. Registered broker-dealers that are able to trade properly registered tokenized assets do not currently exist, even if a tokenized offering were to properly register as a publicly tradable security. Currently, people are avoiding all of this and get tradable assets with near-zero compliance costs. The rebuttal isn't "just register", it is "just register at a very high cost and lose all the benefits you already enjoyed at a lower cost and lose every possible service provider for the foreseeable future"
        omarchowdhury 9y ago
        Yes, I understand securities law. There will be proper avenues to trade tokenized securities within the next 12 to 24 months. There is atleast one high profile crypto exchange in the U.S. working on this that I've learned from an inside source. Your argument is essentially that the infrastructure hasn't caught up yet. It would be naive to think that it won't, especially if tokenized securities are going to be a massive market.
alexasmyths 9y ago
An ICO and an IPO are not comparable - other than the fact they 'raise money' for the issuing company. The notion that most large companies are going to offer 'coins' that have no use or economic basis - or legal right to assets of the company - is in any way scalable for the economy is ... well ... unfeasible. IPO's are not 'broken' - other than perhaps some extra layers of regulation, what is 'broken' is companies making money and having sustainable business models There are a lot of private companies that could be publicly listed, much earlier than 'unicorn stage' - the problem is there isn't enough 'hype' because they're not huge, and there's not enough shares (and frothy banker's commissions) to go around. The 'solution' to the difficulties of IPO have already arrive: massive, late stage funds. The D and E round deals, which are quite large, are now taking the place of IPO's at least for companies that wish to continue growing while not necessarily generating a huge amount of profits. Surely some of the bureaucratic elements of being a publicly listed company could have a re-look - but there's no magic model, I think, at the end of the day.

wslh 9y ago

I think it is something more in between. Currently ICOs don't protect investors in any way. One financial sandbox alternative is to enable capped ICOs to offer securities for real startups. I am tired of utility tokens without too much utility and great speculation.

ringaroundthetx 9y ago
> I think it is something more in between. Yes. One which addresses the unique aspects of the technology, adds consumer and investor protections, and acknowledges the liquidity benefits of an inevitable secondary market which no gatekeeper can prevent. > One financial sandbox alternative is to enable capped ICOs to offer securities for real startups. And not this.
- wslh 9y ago
  > And not this. Why not?
  - ringaroundthetx 9y ago
    securities for real startups most likely means equities in real startups, which comes with the illiquidity burden that people just don't want. a totally roundabout way of using tokenized assets at all
    - charlesdm 9y ago
      Not if they are tradable and (semi) liquid? Isn't that the whole point, to raise capital through an ICO + eventually make said tokens (representing equity) tradable from the start, so you have liquidity?
      - omarchowdhury 9y ago
        Yeah, I don't understand why he's contradicting himself.
        ringaroundthetx 9y ago
        Do you two understand securities laws? So properly registered startup securities cannot be traded on properly registered securities exchanges. If they are not properly registered and only sold to accredited investors, then they can only trade OTC to accredited investors. The costs of registering to trade on properly registered securities exchanges are too high for startups. The ongoing costs of transparency for publicly traded securities are too high for startups. Registered broker-dealers that are able to trade properly registered tokenized assets do not currently exist, even if a tokenized offering were to properly register as a publicly tradable security. Currently, people are avoiding all of this and get tradable assets with near-zero compliance costs. The rebuttal isn't "just register", it is "just register at a very high cost and lose all the benefits you already enjoyed at a lower cost and lose every possible service provider for the foreseeable future"
        omarchowdhury 9y ago
        Yes, I understand securities law. There will be proper avenues to trade tokenized securities within the next 12 to 24 months. There is atleast one high profile crypto exchange in the U.S. working on this that I've learned from an inside source. Your argument is essentially that the infrastructure hasn't caught up yet. It would be naive to think that it won't, especially if tokenized securities are going to be a massive market.

alexasmyths 9y ago

An ICO and an IPO are not comparable - other than the fact they 'raise money' for the issuing company. The notion that most large companies are going to offer 'coins' that have no use or economic basis - or legal right to assets of the company - is in any way scalable for the economy is ... well ... unfeasible. IPO's are not 'broken' - other than perhaps some extra layers of regulation, what is 'broken' is companies making money and having sustainable business models There are a lot of private companies that could be publicly listed, much earlier than 'unicorn stage' - the problem is there isn't enough 'hype' because they're not huge, and there's not enough shares (and frothy banker's commissions) to go around. The 'solution' to the difficulties of IPO have already arrive: massive, late stage funds. The D and E round deals, which are quite large, are now taking the place of IPO's at least for companies that wish to continue growing while not necessarily generating a huge amount of profits. Surely some of the bureaucratic elements of being a publicly listed company could have a re-look - but there's no magic model, I think, at the end of the day.