4 ms·

> They just require "adults in the room." You mean like regulators and trusted intermediaries? Due diligence conducted by independent third parties? Like the r

> They just require "adults in the room." You mean like regulators and trusted intermediaries? Due diligence conducted by independent third parties? Like the real financial system has always had? So basically, we went through this whole ICO bubble to realize that things are the way they are for a reason.

JumpCrisscross 8y ago
> we went through this whole ICO bubble to realize that things are the way they are for a reason That may be overly reductive. My views on several rules changed as a result of observing the ICO phenomenon. For example, I used to be skeptical about accredited investor requirments. Turns out, they're super necessary! On the other hand, I think Regulation D could be massively simplified--from a required paperwork perspective--to lower the cost of selling unregistered securities.
- xur17 8y ago
  > For example, I used to be skeptical about accredited investor requirements. I agree that we should probably have regulations in place to protect people from scams, but accredited investors are just people with > $1M or > $200k in income over the past 2 years. Basically a way to filter for 'wealthy' people that can afford to lose the money.
  - JumpCrisscross 8y ago
    > a way to filter for 'wealthy' people that can afford to lose the money The part I didn't appreciate is it's also a filter for people who can hire a lawyer/adviser to conduct basic diligence. Raising $1 million in $10,000 cheques guarantees virtually zero oversight. That, much more than anything legitimate, has been what ICOs have enabled.
- darth_aardvark 8y ago
  Finally, we've discovered the true value of blockchain: Making people learn about fiduciary policy.
- craigc 8y ago
  > For example, I used to be skeptical about accredited investor requirments. Turns out, they're super necessary! This is one area I keep going back and forth on in my head. On one hand, obviously scams are bad, and the fact that people are throwing their life savings into some of these companies is awful. That said, I am not sure it should be up to Governments to decide who can and can’t invest in early stage startups and how people should be allowed to spend their money. Much of the reason that crowdfunding (Kickstarter, Indiegogo, ICOs) has become popular is because of the lower barrier to entry for contributing to projects/startups. There are a number of companies I would love to invest in, but can’t because I am not a millionaire. I do not really find that fair. Creating an open market around funding will teach people a lot of hard lessons about money. VCs know that 90% of startups are going to fail. I don’t think it is that crazy to believe that regular people can learn that as well. All it takes is one really bad investment to learn the lesson.
  - palakchokshi 8y ago
    You have to beware of overreaction to the bad investment. Generally folks are not savvy investors. Just look at the large number of small investors in the stock markets. When greed takes hold or FOMO does and lots of people lose money it will lead to an overreaction against investors wanting to put money in companies. This will lead to VC/angel investment drying up which in turn will curb startups. Remember we live in a country where a cafe has to put the following disclaimer on Hot coffee paper cups "Caution: The contents of this cup could be hot!!"
    - craigc 8y ago
      Very very true. A lot of people make extremely poor decisions with their money. Perhaps there could be a threshold then? Like you are allowed to invest x% of your income/savings? I don’t really know the answer. I think the cup example may actually be more to prevent restaurants/cafes from lawsuits vs. to actually protect their customers from burns. I suppose it could be a combination of the two though.
      - palakchokshi 8y ago
gascan 8y ago
Which is funnier: tech bros innovating their way to public transit, or bitcoin folks slowly reinventing financial regulation? -- Joseph Fink, Apr 2017
- majani 8y ago
  cryptocurrency seems to me like a group of computer scientists learning Econ 101 from first principles but vehemently denying the conclusions.

JumpCrisscross 8y ago

> we went through this whole ICO bubble to realize that things are the way they are for a reason That may be overly reductive. My views on several rules changed as a result of observing the ICO phenomenon. For example, I used to be skeptical about accredited investor requirments. Turns out, they're super necessary! On the other hand, I think Regulation D could be massively simplified--from a required paperwork perspective--to lower the cost of selling unregistered securities.

xur17 8y ago
> For example, I used to be skeptical about accredited investor requirements. I agree that we should probably have regulations in place to protect people from scams, but accredited investors are just people with > $1M or > $200k in income over the past 2 years. Basically a way to filter for 'wealthy' people that can afford to lose the money.
- JumpCrisscross 8y ago
  > a way to filter for 'wealthy' people that can afford to lose the money The part I didn't appreciate is it's also a filter for people who can hire a lawyer/adviser to conduct basic diligence. Raising $1 million in $10,000 cheques guarantees virtually zero oversight. That, much more than anything legitimate, has been what ICOs have enabled.
darth_aardvark 8y ago
Finally, we've discovered the true value of blockchain: Making people learn about fiduciary policy.
craigc 8y ago
> For example, I used to be skeptical about accredited investor requirments. Turns out, they're super necessary! This is one area I keep going back and forth on in my head. On one hand, obviously scams are bad, and the fact that people are throwing their life savings into some of these companies is awful. That said, I am not sure it should be up to Governments to decide who can and can’t invest in early stage startups and how people should be allowed to spend their money. Much of the reason that crowdfunding (Kickstarter, Indiegogo, ICOs) has become popular is because of the lower barrier to entry for contributing to projects/startups. There are a number of companies I would love to invest in, but can’t because I am not a millionaire. I do not really find that fair. Creating an open market around funding will teach people a lot of hard lessons about money. VCs know that 90% of startups are going to fail. I don’t think it is that crazy to believe that regular people can learn that as well. All it takes is one really bad investment to learn the lesson.
- palakchokshi 8y ago
  You have to beware of overreaction to the bad investment. Generally folks are not savvy investors. Just look at the large number of small investors in the stock markets. When greed takes hold or FOMO does and lots of people lose money it will lead to an overreaction against investors wanting to put money in companies. This will lead to VC/angel investment drying up which in turn will curb startups. Remember we live in a country where a cafe has to put the following disclaimer on Hot coffee paper cups "Caution: The contents of this cup could be hot!!"
  - craigc 8y ago
    Very very true. A lot of people make extremely poor decisions with their money. Perhaps there could be a threshold then? Like you are allowed to invest x% of your income/savings? I don’t really know the answer. I think the cup example may actually be more to prevent restaurants/cafes from lawsuits vs. to actually protect their customers from burns. I suppose it could be a combination of the two though.
    - palakchokshi 8y ago

gascan 8y ago

Which is funnier: tech bros innovating their way to public transit, or bitcoin folks slowly reinventing financial regulation? -- Joseph Fink, Apr 2017

majani 8y ago
cryptocurrency seems to me like a group of computer scientists learning Econ 101 from first principles but vehemently denying the conclusions.