4 ms·

Yes! This is a great example of how costly regulation actually is. I am horrified at the SEC, not at ICO's. Figure how all that moeny could be going, for examp

Yes! This is a great example of how costly regulation actually is. I am horrified at the SEC, not at ICO's. Figure how all that moeny could be going, for example, to YC startups, for a fraction of what they give investors.

emodendroket 9y ago
The SEC came into being because without it a bunch of people were being scammed. Which is exactly what we're seeing with ICOs. I don't see what's horrifying.
- conanbatt 9y ago
  Are you sure they are the same people. That is the people being scammed and the people asking for the SEC?
- summer_steven 9y ago
  So it used to be "only white, male landowners are responsible enough to invest" and now its "only the very richest Americans are responsible enough to invest". The SEC is blatantly discriminating. Why can't I sign a piece of paper and accept responsibility for myself? I'm a grown man with 200k+ in assets, I don't need the government to protect me.
  - gamblor956 9y ago
    If you're a grown man with $200k+ in assets, you appear to qualify to be an accredited investor and you don't need the government to protect you...which is the point of the accredited investor rules. You have the financial resources to absorb a few bad investments/scams. Most people don't have the resources to absorb even one bad investment.
    - summer_steven 9y ago
      In the United States, to be considered an accredited investor, one must have a net worth of at least $1,000,000, excluding the value of one's primary residence, or have income at least $200,000 each year for the last two years (or $300,000 combined income if married
RhodesianHunter 9y ago
Each and every one of these regulations exist for a very good reason though. Sure, some of them could use tweaking or reviewing, but throwing then all out at once is no different than gutting the EPA.
- conanbatt 9y ago
  > Each and every one of these regulations exist for a very good reason though. Any self-made software engineer with 5-10 years working at startups doesn't have the legal capacity to buy stocks in the company he works at. Think that as an investor, this rule eliminates 95% of your competition. As a founder, you have a much weaker position of negotiation. And as an employee, you have incredibly distorting restrictions of what you can get and how much because of this rule. All harmful regulations exist for very good reasons.
  - gamblor956 9y ago
    A software engineer with 5-10 years of experience that doesn't have the financial resources to invest in a company (outside of the stock he is presumably receiving as compensation) has clearly demonstrated a lack of financial intelligence and investment saavy, and probably is the exact type of rube that the accredited investor rules are meant to protect. And as an employee, you have incredibly distorting restrictions of what you can get and how much because of this rule. Blatantly false. An employee can receive unlimited amounts of stock as compensation. They're simply limited in their ability to expend their own financial resources to acquire stock of non-traded companies. All harmful regulations exist for very good reasons. Very true. But this isn't one of the harmful regulations. And even if it is harmful, it prevents significantly more and greater harm than it inflicts.
    - conanbatt 9y ago
      > Blatantly false. An employee can receive unlimited amounts of stock as compensation. They're simply limited in their ability to expend their own financial resources to acquire stock of non-traded companies. Today, employees negotiate the bulk of their stock only once: when they know the least about the company they work for. Not only that, but the information they have is asymetric with investors, because share classes are not the same which makes for a very convoluted and intrasparent market. Also, the majority of startup employees that quit do not excercise their options to the fullest: but they dont have the ease to sell those options to third parties, because of SEC rules. i.e. someone not able or willing to purchase stock when he leaves a company is most likely going to lose them. All consequence of this restriccion of buying and selling stock. Check out Sharepost for an example of this unmet market that drives down compensation. > Very true. But this isn't one of the harmful regulations. And even if it is harmful, it prevents significantly more and greater harm than it inflicts. What's your math to make this claim. I'm willing to be convinced in a strict utilitarian sense.

emodendroket 9y ago

The SEC came into being because without it a bunch of people were being scammed. Which is exactly what we're seeing with ICOs. I don't see what's horrifying.

conanbatt 9y ago
Are you sure they are the same people. That is the people being scammed and the people asking for the SEC?
summer_steven 9y ago
So it used to be "only white, male landowners are responsible enough to invest" and now its "only the very richest Americans are responsible enough to invest". The SEC is blatantly discriminating. Why can't I sign a piece of paper and accept responsibility for myself? I'm a grown man with 200k+ in assets, I don't need the government to protect me.
- gamblor956 9y ago
  If you're a grown man with $200k+ in assets, you appear to qualify to be an accredited investor and you don't need the government to protect you...which is the point of the accredited investor rules. You have the financial resources to absorb a few bad investments/scams. Most people don't have the resources to absorb even one bad investment.
  - summer_steven 9y ago
    In the United States, to be considered an accredited investor, one must have a net worth of at least $1,000,000, excluding the value of one's primary residence, or have income at least $200,000 each year for the last two years (or $300,000 combined income if married

RhodesianHunter 9y ago

Each and every one of these regulations exist for a very good reason though. Sure, some of them could use tweaking or reviewing, but throwing then all out at once is no different than gutting the EPA.

conanbatt 9y ago
> Each and every one of these regulations exist for a very good reason though. Any self-made software engineer with 5-10 years working at startups doesn't have the legal capacity to buy stocks in the company he works at. Think that as an investor, this rule eliminates 95% of your competition. As a founder, you have a much weaker position of negotiation. And as an employee, you have incredibly distorting restrictions of what you can get and how much because of this rule. All harmful regulations exist for very good reasons.
- gamblor956 9y ago
  A software engineer with 5-10 years of experience that doesn't have the financial resources to invest in a company (outside of the stock he is presumably receiving as compensation) has clearly demonstrated a lack of financial intelligence and investment saavy, and probably is the exact type of rube that the accredited investor rules are meant to protect. And as an employee, you have incredibly distorting restrictions of what you can get and how much because of this rule. Blatantly false. An employee can receive unlimited amounts of stock as compensation. They're simply limited in their ability to expend their own financial resources to acquire stock of non-traded companies. All harmful regulations exist for very good reasons. Very true. But this isn't one of the harmful regulations. And even if it is harmful, it prevents significantly more and greater harm than it inflicts.
  - conanbatt 9y ago
    > Blatantly false. An employee can receive unlimited amounts of stock as compensation. They're simply limited in their ability to expend their own financial resources to acquire stock of non-traded companies. Today, employees negotiate the bulk of their stock only once: when they know the least about the company they work for. Not only that, but the information they have is asymetric with investors, because share classes are not the same which makes for a very convoluted and intrasparent market. Also, the majority of startup employees that quit do not excercise their options to the fullest: but they dont have the ease to sell those options to third parties, because of SEC rules. i.e. someone not able or willing to purchase stock when he leaves a company is most likely going to lose them. All consequence of this restriccion of buying and selling stock. Check out Sharepost for an example of this unmet market that drives down compensation. > Very true. But this isn't one of the harmful regulations. And even if it is harmful, it prevents significantly more and greater harm than it inflicts. What's your math to make this claim. I'm willing to be convinced in a strict utilitarian sense.