4 ms·

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

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.
        chickenfries 9y ago
        > I admit I am not that knowledgeable on possible history where too many did fraudulent filings requiring this individual-lawyer-review preemption. So youre criticizing an institution while being ignorant of the conditions that caused that institution to come about? I suspect you’re not alone in this thread but this kind of ahistoricity makes it impossible to have any kind of reasonable civic discourse. Democracy demands that we educate ourselves. Read about the Great Depression, the creation of the SEC and why it was needed in the first place. The current situation with ICOs where you have some legitimate businessses and some scams advertising themselves to Main Street investors is very similar to the situation with securities before the SEC.
        kodablah 9y ago
        Sigh. No, I specifically said I am not aware of the historical reason that preemptive gatekeeping was chosen in lieu of normal enforcement. I am unsure how you read it as why the SEC came about. Regardless, it was a tongue in cheek way to say it's an abnormal law enforcement approach not based on failure/need.
        chickenfries 9y ago
        I'm sorry, I didn't mean to read your claims uncharitably. I'm not sure I get your point now even though you've told me you were being sarcastic. > I am unsure how you read it as why the SEC came about. Visiting your original statement: > I admit I am not that knowledgeable on possible history where too many did fraudulent filings requiring this individual-lawyer-review preemption. This "possible history where too many did fraudulent filings" is the history immediately preceding the creation of the SEC, the period before and during the Great Depression. Things like ICO scams are exactly what the SEC was created to respond to. Securities with no inherent value driven by speculation. I'm sure many will argue that this is unfair to the law abiding ICOs and that's true. But the SEC prevents a deluge of fraudulent securities from taking peoples money and doing the damage in the first place.
    - s73ver_ 9y ago
      If you've got evidence to back up that claim, feel free. Remember, however, that the people the SEC employs for doing this are expensive.
- chickenfries 9y ago
  No I think people in general are quite happy with the SEC and pay-to-play barriers. The boosters looking to make money of ICOs and such may be tired of the SEC, but that's like saying unlicensed drivers are tired of the cops.
  - kodablah 9y ago
    > I think people in general are quite happy with the SEC and pay-to-play barriers I think you are probably right. But as crowdfunding (er, "crowd investing") becomes more available to the masses and the SEC cracks down on it more, a whole group of people that otherwise were unfamiliar w/ these rules aren't going to remain happy. I would not be surprised to see the barriers relaxed (but not the regulations of course).

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.
      - chickenfries 9y ago
        > I admit I am not that knowledgeable on possible history where too many did fraudulent filings requiring this individual-lawyer-review preemption. So youre criticizing an institution while being ignorant of the conditions that caused that institution to come about? I suspect you’re not alone in this thread but this kind of ahistoricity makes it impossible to have any kind of reasonable civic discourse. Democracy demands that we educate ourselves. Read about the Great Depression, the creation of the SEC and why it was needed in the first place. The current situation with ICOs where you have some legitimate businessses and some scams advertising themselves to Main Street investors is very similar to the situation with securities before the SEC.
        kodablah 9y ago
        Sigh. No, I specifically said I am not aware of the historical reason that preemptive gatekeeping was chosen in lieu of normal enforcement. I am unsure how you read it as why the SEC came about. Regardless, it was a tongue in cheek way to say it's an abnormal law enforcement approach not based on failure/need.
        chickenfries 9y ago
        I'm sorry, I didn't mean to read your claims uncharitably. I'm not sure I get your point now even though you've told me you were being sarcastic. > I am unsure how you read it as why the SEC came about. Visiting your original statement: > I admit I am not that knowledgeable on possible history where too many did fraudulent filings requiring this individual-lawyer-review preemption. This "possible history where too many did fraudulent filings" is the history immediately preceding the creation of the SEC, the period before and during the Great Depression. Things like ICO scams are exactly what the SEC was created to respond to. Securities with no inherent value driven by speculation. I'm sure many will argue that this is unfair to the law abiding ICOs and that's true. But the SEC prevents a deluge of fraudulent securities from taking peoples money and doing the damage in the first place.
  - s73ver_ 9y ago
    If you've got evidence to back up that claim, feel free. Remember, however, that the people the SEC employs for doing this are expensive.
chickenfries 9y ago
No I think people in general are quite happy with the SEC and pay-to-play barriers. The boosters looking to make money of ICOs and such may be tired of the SEC, but that's like saying unlicensed drivers are tired of the cops.
- kodablah 9y ago
  > I think people in general are quite happy with the SEC and pay-to-play barriers I think you are probably right. But as crowdfunding (er, "crowd investing") becomes more available to the masses and the SEC cracks down on it more, a whole group of people that otherwise were unfamiliar w/ these rules aren't going to remain happy. I would not be surprised to see the barriers relaxed (but not the regulations of course).