4 ms·
Accredited investor laws are disgusting. Personally, I'd much prefer to hold securities, tokens, equities, currency on-chain than via some broker. Similarly as
by hndamien 9y ago
Accredited investor laws are disgusting. Personally, I'd much prefer to hold securities, tokens, equities, currency on-chain than via some broker. Similarly as a way to accept dividends as well. Having a compliant way of performing this would be fantastic.
Edit: Since we have the downvoters here, does anybody want to defend accredited investor laws? Here is some stimulus material - https://qz.com/431198/this-is-not-a-typo-only-3-of-americans-are-legally-allowed-to-invest-in-start-ups/ https://qz.com/431198/this-is-not-a-typo-only-3-of-americans...
- JumpCrisscross 9y ago> Accredited investor laws are disgusting. Personally, I'd much prefer to hold securities, tokens, equities, currency on-chain than via some broker These are unrelated. You can hold stocks, bonds and commodities in your own name. It’s inconvenient and carries no advantage over owning them in “street name”. But that isn’t an accredited/un-accredited difference.
- hndamien 9y agoSure they aren't related, but they are related to the parent comment which mentions both. I was just stating that the former is a form of discrimination to restrict opportunity and increase wealth disparity. The latter is just a preference. Both were being discussed in the parent comment.
- monochromatic 9y agoMost startups fail.
- hndamien 9y agoI fail to see the point. Investors manage their risk-reward profile by investing different percentage amounts of their net worth. The measure of how much money you have or make per year is in no way an indicator of how capable you are in assessing these opportunities. The fact that only 3% of Americans can invest in this vehicle that by your admission mostly fail may be an indicator of this (I'll admit it's not causal, I'm just being cheeky).