4 ms·

its sad that the operational risk is so damn high though. you have to: 1) like the idea 2) trust the management team 3) hope infrastructure gets built aroun

its sad that the operational risk is so damn high though. you have to: 1) like the idea 2) trust the management team 3) hope infrastructure gets built around it so that there could be perpetual demand for these tokens 4) hope the regulators play ball and if any thing incompetent happens with the management team, all liquidity evaporates permanently, no matter if the problem and solution were sound ideas when really you just want to be able to "like the idea" and let it flourish on its own, where a management team doesn't need to exist, or a management team can be hotswapped for anyone

arcticbull 7y ago
Correct. That's why we have an established, well worn process for raising funding for your business. You raise from accredited investors by selling the highest-risk equity, then as you become more mature, you raise from bigger, less risk-tolerant entities. Eventually, you're in a position to publish financials regularly, and raise money from a broader audience ("go public"). Your itemized list is why we do it that way. This "tokenize everything" end run around the SEC is a just a way to bilk low-income individuals of their hard-earned savings. The crypto community continues to speed-run the history of finance.
- seibelj 7y ago
  Yet letting Uber's bag holders dump their stock on the public was ethically correct? Don't pretend our current system of only letting the rich get richer by banning access to early-stage ventures is the best society can do.
  - r00fus 7y ago
    I'm not the biggest Uber fan, but you could say that about any IPO. Uber at the time was (and is) a going concern with an actual product, not a random token/coin.
  - arcticbull 7y ago
    All of the data necessary for anyone to make an informed purchasing decision about $UBER is available per SEC regulation. It's up to each individual to decide based on that whether or not it represents a good value, and to hit "buy" on their preferred trading platform, and at what price. Nobody was forced to buy $UBER, and nobody was lied to, and if they were, they've got plenty of recourse via the SEC. Everything of value was in the S-1 for months before the first trading day. Nobody is banned from investing in early-stage businesses except by virtue of their level of risk tolerance, and some of us angel invest regularly. However, just opening up access to everyone doesn't change the fact that a legitimate, well-funded company with great traction and a great idea (the kind of equity you want) has no interest in selling to some random small-time individual with no experience to bring to bear. As a founder, in early stages, I'd want smart money. Just as nobody was required to purchase $UBER nobody is required to sell shares of their startup to small-time investors who have no idea what they're doing and provide no value. I predict if accreditation rules were removed, the same pool of smart money continues to get all the wins, but now dumb money holds all the bags. Yes, it's possible to make bad investing decisions. That certainly doesn't mean ICOs are a good idea.
    - seibelj 7y ago
      Thank you for describing our current system to me. I am advocating for a new system that lets people take more risk even if they are not wealthy. There is nothing magical that happens when you make $200k per year, if you make $199,999 per year you are not an idiot that needs the government to protect you from bad investments.
      - arcticbull 7y ago
        To be clear the system you're asking for exists, it was brought in by Obama as part of the JOBS act. Anyone can buy equity under the JOBS act and the company has far lower documentation requirements. The 'good' companies (in-demand equity) don't do it because they won't want to pollute their cap tables with 'dumb money' and the ones who are okay with that are terrible investments. It's adverse selection. [1] Getting rich isn't easy and opening up unregulated access to crap securities isn't going to change that. [1] https://www.finra.org/investors/alerts/crowdfunding-and-jobs-act-what-investors-should-know https://www.finra.org/investors/alerts/crowdfunding-and-jobs...
  - mbesto 7y ago
    > Don't pretend our current system of only letting the rich get richer by banning access to early-stage ventures is the best society can do. It's not, but that's not the point. Offering unfettered access to investing with zero regulation is exactly how more of the Bernie Madoff's of the world would exist. You think the rich are getting richer under the current system now? Just imagine the number of grifter's that would get richer by swindling large swathes of common folk.
  - citruspi 7y ago
    > Yet letting Uber's bag holders dump their stock on the public was ethically correct? No one dumped their stock on the public. They offered to sell it and someone offered to purchase it. (Granted, "the public" has some ownership because it likely ended up in several funds that people are invested in). But on an individual transaction level, someone sought to buy it at a price and someone else sought to sell it at that price. What's the problem with that transaction? That's how every IPO, and to a greater extent - "the market," works.
  - sdinsn 7y ago
    They are only able to dump their stock if someone is willing to buy it.
- Temasik 7y ago
  I ain't buying your bags VCs
  - arcticbull 7y ago
    I guess you'd be unhappy with Square's returns (IPO at $9.00 three years ago, currently trading at $82.28, for an annualized 100% gain)? Take that, VCs.
- rolltiide 7y ago
  > The crypto community continues to speed-run the history of finance. I think it is making it better than your classist dystopia. In the same day: The US Treasury just talked about returning to a period of private currencies, but global this time, in response to proliferation of crypto assets being used as stores of value, currency and collateral. Central banks can still provide liquidity to the market. The unbanked have access to a global economy. The US President gave an advertisement to bitcoin and Libra. The SEC approved a digital Reg A+ offering, which is a rubric for all other ones. US Congress members actively talking about the Token Taxonomy Act together to help all branches of the government adapt faster.

arcticbull 7y ago

Correct. That's why we have an established, well worn process for raising funding for your business. You raise from accredited investors by selling the highest-risk equity, then as you become more mature, you raise from bigger, less risk-tolerant entities. Eventually, you're in a position to publish financials regularly, and raise money from a broader audience ("go public"). Your itemized list is why we do it that way. This "tokenize everything" end run around the SEC is a just a way to bilk low-income individuals of their hard-earned savings. The crypto community continues to speed-run the history of finance.

seibelj 7y ago
Yet letting Uber's bag holders dump their stock on the public was ethically correct? Don't pretend our current system of only letting the rich get richer by banning access to early-stage ventures is the best society can do.
- r00fus 7y ago
  I'm not the biggest Uber fan, but you could say that about any IPO. Uber at the time was (and is) a going concern with an actual product, not a random token/coin.
- arcticbull 7y ago
  All of the data necessary for anyone to make an informed purchasing decision about $UBER is available per SEC regulation. It's up to each individual to decide based on that whether or not it represents a good value, and to hit "buy" on their preferred trading platform, and at what price. Nobody was forced to buy $UBER, and nobody was lied to, and if they were, they've got plenty of recourse via the SEC. Everything of value was in the S-1 for months before the first trading day. Nobody is banned from investing in early-stage businesses except by virtue of their level of risk tolerance, and some of us angel invest regularly. However, just opening up access to everyone doesn't change the fact that a legitimate, well-funded company with great traction and a great idea (the kind of equity you want) has no interest in selling to some random small-time individual with no experience to bring to bear. As a founder, in early stages, I'd want smart money. Just as nobody was required to purchase $UBER nobody is required to sell shares of their startup to small-time investors who have no idea what they're doing and provide no value. I predict if accreditation rules were removed, the same pool of smart money continues to get all the wins, but now dumb money holds all the bags. Yes, it's possible to make bad investing decisions. That certainly doesn't mean ICOs are a good idea.
  - seibelj 7y ago
    Thank you for describing our current system to me. I am advocating for a new system that lets people take more risk even if they are not wealthy. There is nothing magical that happens when you make $200k per year, if you make $199,999 per year you are not an idiot that needs the government to protect you from bad investments.
    - arcticbull 7y ago
      To be clear the system you're asking for exists, it was brought in by Obama as part of the JOBS act. Anyone can buy equity under the JOBS act and the company has far lower documentation requirements. The 'good' companies (in-demand equity) don't do it because they won't want to pollute their cap tables with 'dumb money' and the ones who are okay with that are terrible investments. It's adverse selection. [1] Getting rich isn't easy and opening up unregulated access to crap securities isn't going to change that. [1] https://www.finra.org/investors/alerts/crowdfunding-and-jobs-act-what-investors-should-know https://www.finra.org/investors/alerts/crowdfunding-and-jobs...
- mbesto 7y ago
  > Don't pretend our current system of only letting the rich get richer by banning access to early-stage ventures is the best society can do. It's not, but that's not the point. Offering unfettered access to investing with zero regulation is exactly how more of the Bernie Madoff's of the world would exist. You think the rich are getting richer under the current system now? Just imagine the number of grifter's that would get richer by swindling large swathes of common folk.
- citruspi 7y ago
  > Yet letting Uber's bag holders dump their stock on the public was ethically correct? No one dumped their stock on the public. They offered to sell it and someone offered to purchase it. (Granted, "the public" has some ownership because it likely ended up in several funds that people are invested in). But on an individual transaction level, someone sought to buy it at a price and someone else sought to sell it at that price. What's the problem with that transaction? That's how every IPO, and to a greater extent - "the market," works.
- sdinsn 7y ago
  They are only able to dump their stock if someone is willing to buy it.
Temasik 7y ago
I ain't buying your bags VCs
- arcticbull 7y ago
  I guess you'd be unhappy with Square's returns (IPO at $9.00 three years ago, currently trading at $82.28, for an annualized 100% gain)? Take that, VCs.
rolltiide 7y ago
> The crypto community continues to speed-run the history of finance. I think it is making it better than your classist dystopia. In the same day: The US Treasury just talked about returning to a period of private currencies, but global this time, in response to proliferation of crypto assets being used as stores of value, currency and collateral. Central banks can still provide liquidity to the market. The unbanked have access to a global economy. The US President gave an advertisement to bitcoin and Libra. The SEC approved a digital Reg A+ offering, which is a rubric for all other ones. US Congress members actively talking about the Token Taxonomy Act together to help all branches of the government adapt faster.