5 ms·

not to be that guy, but… username checks out! (inb4 hn is turning into reddit)

by alanh 7y ago

CryptoPunk 7y ago
Yea I believe that consensual interactions, whether it's in the civil sphere, with high-risk sexual practices, or the economic sphere, with high-risk investments, should not face any government prohibition.
- workingpatrick 7y ago
  I'd argue that for the interaction to be truly consensual, both parties must be fully informed about the risks and rewards of the interaction that they are choosing to participate in. My reading of the SEC press release leads me to believe that the primary reason for requiring filing with the SEC for a sale of this nature is to ensure that all relevant information is available for the parties involved, thus allowing the interaction to be truly consensual.
  - CryptoPunk 7y ago
    You don't prohibit an entire class of interactions, and then approve them on a case-by-case basis when the centralized authority deems that the interaction is consensual. Approval-encumbered interaction is not consistent with how free society works, where people are presumed innocent, and not burdened with restrictions, until proven guilty. Speech used to be like that. You had to get approval from the state, before being allowed to publish. This was to prevent things like libel. It was called Prior Restraint. Eventually courts ruled it violated the Freedom of Speech, and we are all vastly better for that ruling. In practice it's also not flexible enough for innovation. It regiments only one acceptable way to establish an informed and consensual interaction, which precludes innovative new ways opened up by technology.
- james_s_tayler 7y ago
  we ran that experiment in 2017 and everyone got rekt
- ibejoeb 7y ago
  Likely that the majority here agrees in principal, but those things you're describing are different practices. You might liken an underground ICO to a bug chaser party where some participant doesn't even know what that is. That kind of stuff is a real problem, and there are plenty of scenarios where government prohibition isn't overstepping. In those cases, we're not protecting you from yourself, but rather protecting everyone else from you and your poor decisions that make your misfortune a burden to society.
  - CryptoPunk 7y ago
    >>You might liken an underground ICO to a bug chaser party where some participant doesn't even know what that is. The vast majority of people applauding restrictions on securities offerings would vote against any party that advocated similar restrictions on high-risk sexual activity. That shows that most people are just conforming to the popular viewpoint, and not independently and critically thinking about the issue. That is dangerous, because these issues are too complex, and too important, to decide on nothing more than what position is the popular fad. They have very significant consequences for huge numbers of people. We as a society need every single voter to fully understand the principle behind every law, and be able to justify it, because the consequence for violating the laws is that a person has their property seized, or their freedom taken away. Also, I think your analogy is inappropriate. People investing in crypto tokens is not going to do damage anywhere close to that done by "bug chaser parties". It's just money, if that (much of it is in the form of other crypto-tokens, so we're not even talking about fiat currency being risked). Even if you accept that people bankrupting themselves is a terrible outcome for society, the fact remains that people have plenty of other ways to blow their money. I can't see how these investments not being prohibited would make the problem any worse. But what a lack of prohibitions and a free market in soliciting and making investments would do is provide people with valuable exposure to the real investment world, and allow them to get a better understanding of how marketing hype, and speculative bubbles work, and how to identify real value. It would also allow people in much lower socio-economic groups to raise capital. Finally, no one is saying that victimizing behaviour, like fraud, should be legal. The question is, how do you address predatory behaviour. The answer in the West has traditionally been to punish those convicted of committing it. Cookie-cutter rules that subordinate every participant in an industry to a centralized gatekeeper, are disproportionate to the threat of fraud and inconsistent with the principles of a free society, like the presumption of innocence and the freedom of association and contract. They overly regiment the market, which inhibits innovation, and create barriers to entry to various sectors of the economy that exacerbate income inequality.
- arcticbull 7y ago
  You’re also likely the first to whine when someone “steals” your coins (not your keys, not your coins) and about how wildly unregulated the exchange that exit scammed you is. This conversation plays out regularly in pro crypto subreddits. Privatized gains, socialized losses.

not to be that guy, but… username checks out! (inb4 hn is turning into reddit)

by alanh 7y ago

not to be that guy, but… username checks out! (inb4 hn is turning into reddit)

Yea I believe that consensual interactions, whether it's in the civil sphere, with high-risk sexual practices, or the economic sphere, with high-risk investments, should not face any government prohibition.

workingpatrick 7y ago
I'd argue that for the interaction to be truly consensual, both parties must be fully informed about the risks and rewards of the interaction that they are choosing to participate in. My reading of the SEC press release leads me to believe that the primary reason for requiring filing with the SEC for a sale of this nature is to ensure that all relevant information is available for the parties involved, thus allowing the interaction to be truly consensual.
- CryptoPunk 7y ago
  You don't prohibit an entire class of interactions, and then approve them on a case-by-case basis when the centralized authority deems that the interaction is consensual. Approval-encumbered interaction is not consistent with how free society works, where people are presumed innocent, and not burdened with restrictions, until proven guilty. Speech used to be like that. You had to get approval from the state, before being allowed to publish. This was to prevent things like libel. It was called Prior Restraint. Eventually courts ruled it violated the Freedom of Speech, and we are all vastly better for that ruling. In practice it's also not flexible enough for innovation. It regiments only one acceptable way to establish an informed and consensual interaction, which precludes innovative new ways opened up by technology.
james_s_tayler 7y ago
we ran that experiment in 2017 and everyone got rekt
ibejoeb 7y ago
Likely that the majority here agrees in principal, but those things you're describing are different practices. You might liken an underground ICO to a bug chaser party where some participant doesn't even know what that is. That kind of stuff is a real problem, and there are plenty of scenarios where government prohibition isn't overstepping. In those cases, we're not protecting you from yourself, but rather protecting everyone else from you and your poor decisions that make your misfortune a burden to society.
- CryptoPunk 7y ago
  >>You might liken an underground ICO to a bug chaser party where some participant doesn't even know what that is. The vast majority of people applauding restrictions on securities offerings would vote against any party that advocated similar restrictions on high-risk sexual activity. That shows that most people are just conforming to the popular viewpoint, and not independently and critically thinking about the issue. That is dangerous, because these issues are too complex, and too important, to decide on nothing more than what position is the popular fad. They have very significant consequences for huge numbers of people. We as a society need every single voter to fully understand the principle behind every law, and be able to justify it, because the consequence for violating the laws is that a person has their property seized, or their freedom taken away. Also, I think your analogy is inappropriate. People investing in crypto tokens is not going to do damage anywhere close to that done by "bug chaser parties". It's just money, if that (much of it is in the form of other crypto-tokens, so we're not even talking about fiat currency being risked). Even if you accept that people bankrupting themselves is a terrible outcome for society, the fact remains that people have plenty of other ways to blow their money. I can't see how these investments not being prohibited would make the problem any worse. But what a lack of prohibitions and a free market in soliciting and making investments would do is provide people with valuable exposure to the real investment world, and allow them to get a better understanding of how marketing hype, and speculative bubbles work, and how to identify real value. It would also allow people in much lower socio-economic groups to raise capital. Finally, no one is saying that victimizing behaviour, like fraud, should be legal. The question is, how do you address predatory behaviour. The answer in the West has traditionally been to punish those convicted of committing it. Cookie-cutter rules that subordinate every participant in an industry to a centralized gatekeeper, are disproportionate to the threat of fraud and inconsistent with the principles of a free society, like the presumption of innocence and the freedom of association and contract. They overly regiment the market, which inhibits innovation, and create barriers to entry to various sectors of the economy that exacerbate income inequality.
arcticbull 7y ago
You’re also likely the first to whine when someone “steals” your coins (not your keys, not your coins) and about how wildly unregulated the exchange that exit scammed you is. This conversation plays out regularly in pro crypto subreddits. Privatized gains, socialized losses.