3 ms·

> Sound completely unfair? Government overstep? Yes, if I want to try to create a thing I reasonably believe will have value, and I'm honest about it, there sh

by burnte 6y ago

> Sound completely unfair? Government overstep? Yes, if I want to try to create a thing I reasonably believe will have value, and I'm honest about it, there should be little regulatory issue. Considering how many other cryptocurrencies there are, I REALLY don't understand at all why SEC cared about this one. There are far more shadier ones around than TON. > We aren't allowed to sell people something that doesn't exist? We do that every day. Commodities futures and stock options. Speculative investments in oil, gas, wind, tech, medicine, cars, etc. SOFTWARE. Not only that, we allow people to pay other people with promises they have the right to buy a thing that doesn't exist at a price we set today (unvested non-voting stock options), because we THINK it might be worth more later, although we fully acknowledge it may cease to exist, or even never exist at all (unvested options in a company that never goes public, or sells, and your shares vanish).

dathinab 6y ago
> I REALLY don't understand at all why SEC cared about this one. There are far more shadier ones around than TON. I guess it's because they believed that TON had the potential to actually become wide spread by it's Telegram integration. Which makes the regulators sound quite evil. But you can reformulate that as it having potential to cause large, wide spread amounts of damages. ;=)
jrumbut 6y ago
The SEC is not preventing blockchain companies from selling securities, but only requiring that the same rules be followed that would allow me to sell shares of my gold mining outfit to the public. The problem isn't risk at all, like you said, plenty of securities sold to the public carry enormous risk. The regulations are in place not to prevent failed businesses but to ensure shareholders get their fair due when a business succeeds and have a basic set of facts when considering investments. Overstock, for instance, has been able to offer their securities on a blockchain. Their application is different from TON but it shows there is a path to doing this if you follow the rules.

by burnte 6y ago

dathinab 6y ago

> I REALLY don't understand at all why SEC cared about this one. There are far more shadier ones around than TON. I guess it's because they believed that TON had the potential to actually become wide spread by it's Telegram integration. Which makes the regulators sound quite evil. But you can reformulate that as it having potential to cause large, wide spread amounts of damages. ;=)

jrumbut 6y ago

The SEC is not preventing blockchain companies from selling securities, but only requiring that the same rules be followed that would allow me to sell shares of my gold mining outfit to the public. The problem isn't risk at all, like you said, plenty of securities sold to the public carry enormous risk. The regulations are in place not to prevent failed businesses but to ensure shareholders get their fair due when a business succeeds and have a basic set of facts when considering investments. Overstock, for instance, has been able to offer their securities on a blockchain. Their application is different from TON but it shows there is a path to doing this if you follow the rules.