4 ms·

If 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

If 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 ago
SEC 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 ago
  If 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 ago
        I'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 ago
        How 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?
        kodablah 9y ago
        I'm saying the application shouldn't require hours of work by lawyers any more than filing for an LLC or my tax filings require individual lawyer review. In my head, I read the last statement like "why should the law trust you if you don't have enough money, and why should you be allowed to do something without the law's trust?" I believe enforcement should be reactive on regulation skirting within reason. Akin to an audit, an arrest, or anything else. You agree to abide by laws, you may even sign something or fill out a form to that effect. That there is an extra step to see if you "really" agree seems to be a way to artificially limit filing counts. I admit I am not that knowledgeable on possible history where too many did fraudulent filings requiring this individual-lawyer-review preemption.
        9y ago
- s73ver_ 9y ago
  If you're only focusing on the costs of compliance, then you're looking at the wrong thing. "Coin offerings do not have to fall in the tens of millions of dollars." The amount of money does not matter; a scam is a scam. "For companies on this scale, having to hire a legal team to ensure compliance is a significant burden." That sucks for them. But the alternative is far, far worse. "A coin offering instead of angel investors could have been an interesting option for a similar company now a days." Why? If the only reason is that they don't have to comply with the reporting and transparency regulations, then it's not a good reason. "But you have to balance the cost of compliance with the expected results." Why? And, quite frankly, why should an ICO be treated any differently than any other security? They are exactly the same; and have absolutely nothing differentiating them from traditional securities. "How will this effect the rate of perfectly up and up ICOs that are not made available to US investors?" I'm going to say it won't. Perfectly up and up ICOs will be able to get compliance, and will thus be open to all.

If 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 ago

SEC 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 ago
If 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 ago
      I'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 ago
        How 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?
        kodablah 9y ago
        I'm saying the application shouldn't require hours of work by lawyers any more than filing for an LLC or my tax filings require individual lawyer review. In my head, I read the last statement like "why should the law trust you if you don't have enough money, and why should you be allowed to do something without the law's trust?" I believe enforcement should be reactive on regulation skirting within reason. Akin to an audit, an arrest, or anything else. You agree to abide by laws, you may even sign something or fill out a form to that effect. That there is an extra step to see if you "really" agree seems to be a way to artificially limit filing counts. I admit I am not that knowledgeable on possible history where too many did fraudulent filings requiring this individual-lawyer-review preemption.
        9y ago
s73ver_ 9y ago
If you're only focusing on the costs of compliance, then you're looking at the wrong thing. "Coin offerings do not have to fall in the tens of millions of dollars." The amount of money does not matter; a scam is a scam. "For companies on this scale, having to hire a legal team to ensure compliance is a significant burden." That sucks for them. But the alternative is far, far worse. "A coin offering instead of angel investors could have been an interesting option for a similar company now a days." Why? If the only reason is that they don't have to comply with the reporting and transparency regulations, then it's not a good reason. "But you have to balance the cost of compliance with the expected results." Why? And, quite frankly, why should an ICO be treated any differently than any other security? They are exactly the same; and have absolutely nothing differentiating them from traditional securities. "How will this effect the rate of perfectly up and up ICOs that are not made available to US investors?" I'm going to say it won't. Perfectly up and up ICOs will be able to get compliance, and will thus be open to all.