3 ms·

Part of the problems, as I understand it, is that ICO's are different enough from traditional securities that present regulations in some important ways don't f

• amygdyl 9y ago
  If you interpret the history of regulation as originating from the needs of the overseen organisations, then you end up with securities governance that fits the operational style of the incumbents, rather than laws that apply generally and effectivly for all business that's effectively equivalent. This is because the regulated organisations generally prefer to be governed by definitions that align with their procedures and operating functions. Firstly it reduces much if compliance to merely perfunctory tests of verisimilitude to procedures that are accepted as being protective of disadvantaged interests. Second challenger organisations are forced to replicate very expensive structures. Third, because operational verisimilitude to going governance is rooted in operations, the advantage of interpretation of the rules falls to the same incumbent parties. Regulatory agencies often seem oblivious to the fact that they are negotiating with back office support rather than outright principles. I understand the human inclination to see what we do as being what we mean, but the securities industry perennially confounds the notion.