8 ms·
This also deters entrepreneurship from otherwise less established entities. The risk with regulations like this is that in attempting to keep out the scammers,
by indubitable 9y ago
This also deters entrepreneurship from otherwise less established entities. The risk with regulations like this is that in attempting to keep out the scammers, you also end up keeping out smaller by otherwise completely authentic entities.
In the worst case you end up keeping out smaller players, yet the scammers find creative ways around the system. Take, for instance, patents. They were initially envisioned as a way for independent inventors to ensure their ideas were not stolen. But a century of absurdly complex rules and regulations paired with extreme fees mostly keeps out very small scale inventors. On the other hands, the scammers are seemingly as active as ever and completely inappropriate patents are still regularly granted. So what have we truly accomplished?
- s73ver_ 9y agoIf you're deterred by this kind of thing, then perhaps you're the kind of "entrepreneur" that should be discouraged. We absolutely do not need any more scammers in this space.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- indubitable 9y agoSEC compliance comes with extensive fees, delays, and a century of legalese. Coin offerings do not have to fall in the tens of millions of dollars. It's a practical way for smaller startups to raise small amounts of money. For instance the first company that started Musk's rise was Zip2 - and it was started with money that was in the 5 figures. A coin offering instead of angel investors could have been an interesting option for a similar company now a days. For companies on this scale, having to hire a legal team to ensure compliance is a significant burden. How much do you think this will end up costing companies to comply with? Ultimately we'd all like to have 100% honest ICOs. But you have to balance the cost of compliance with the expected results. Many ICOs already block American investors and that was before this. How will this effect the rates of scams? How will this effect the rate of perfectly up and up ICOs that are not made available to US investors?
- chickenfries 9y agoIf an ICO is perfectly up and up they should abide by the same regulation as other securities. If you can’t afford the regulation then you can’t afford to sell securities. It seems like ICO boosters have a hard time believing that everyone isn’t a libertarian who wants there to be no regulation on ICOs.
- kodablah 9y ago> If you can’t afford the regulation then you can’t afford to sell securities. People are growing tired of the pay-to-play barriers to entry. Why can't we have the regulations without the financial burdens? (Hint: the answer is not about following the regulations themselves, but artificially limiting supply to make for easier enforcement. Otherwise there are too many to meaningfully regulate.)
- s73ver_ 9y ago"Why can't we have the regulations without the financial burdens?" If you can find people willing to work for your without pay, you can.
- kodablah 9y agoI'm questioning the amount of work required as the burden, not the humans. IIRC, the SEC filings require multi-thousand dollar fees. Many government services do not (or not at that level). Do you believe all of those other government services are making people work without pay? I don't think it's fair that you blindly assume the fees are equal to the administrative costs when it seems clear to me they are set at a level to detract the action.
- chickenfries 9y agoHow many government services require hours of work by lawyers per application? If you can't cough up a few thousand dollars or take our a small business loan to hire some lawyers, why should I believe that you're trustworthy enough to skirt regulations?