3 ms·

I would like to be able to invest in whatever I want. As an American, I cannot, because US exchanges can't list all the cryptocurrencies that Asian exchanges c

I would like to be able to invest in whatever I want. As an American, I cannot, because US exchanges can't list all the cryptocurrencies that Asian exchanges can, due to fears that the coins / tokens could be flagged as securities. How is this protecting me?

airstrike 5y ago
> How is this protecting me? Go read up on the history of securities trading prior to the various acts from the 1930s.
jollybean 5y ago
It's hard to fathom why people wouldn't know why regulations exist. Without regulatory bodies, markets would not exist. This is because regular consumers don't have the energy or ability to evaluate the quality of products or services, so in certain areas (health, safety, finance), where it 'really matters' - we regulate. Without a drug regulatory body, there would be no way to know what drugs work, and the market would be almost entirely scammers. Have a look at 'moisterizers' - it's a ridiculous game of false and misleading information by so called 'reputable' companies using technology totally out of context i.e. 'collagen' in order to be able to put it on the label. There's nary a way to understand what is effective and what is not. It's a completely distorted market. Now, it's just moisturizer, so it doesn't matter. But we don't want the same thing for diabetes drugs, now do we? The financial system is highly, highly regulated because it used to be full of outright scams and the system couldn't grow without it. Integrity is key to all long term growth, it's why we have rules. Now it should be possible to invest in highly speculative, risky things - sure - that should be up to you - but the reason we don't want to allow that in some instances is because the mechanism itself is fraudulent and misrepresentation i.e. a Ponzi Scheme is a Ponzi Scheme and it's bad to have them going around, even if you want to invest in them. The entire field of Crypto thus far has been a giant distraction and waste of time, while there is definitely the possibility of some good coming out of this, it hasn't happened yet, we should be in the experimental stage, not the 'using up more electricity than Argentina stage'.
- hackingforfun 5y ago
  I can't disagree more. Crypto is a new market that should have a different set of rules, based on new technology, and what is happening now, not in 1933. > Now it should be possible to invest in highly speculative, risky things - sure - that should be up to you This is literally all I'm asking.
  - jollybean 5y ago
    "This is literally all I'm asking.:" You're asking to defraud people. (i.e. invest in things that are securities, but without having to follow the securities regulations). Sorry, but no. This is not a matter of just 'risk' to you - you are allowed to take on as much risk as you want - you may need to be an accredited investor, sure, but you can still take on risk and invest in whatever you want. As long as it's not a scam. 'We' (i.e. everyone else) does not want 'you' putting money in giant scam vehicles, they're toxic to a functioning market. If you want to sell/buy/participate in a market for something that is like a security, then it has to follow securities regulations. If you want to sell a drug that says that 'it cures cancer' - it has to be approved. If you want to sell a car, it has to pass safety checks. If you don't want to do those things, then you can go a place like Afghanistan to see how it works out. FYI even the Taliban (!) are trying to fight against fraud because they know it's bad. There is no advantage to to society to skip these regulations. The only advantage to cheating on the regulations, is for early movers, to leverage themselves over dupes in an otherwise zero-sum game. There are opportunities for things that transcend regulation but we don't have any examples of that quite yet. For example, 'some future crypto' (not BTC or ETH) might provide the possibility for less oversight etc..
    - thebean11 5y ago
      > you may need to be an accredited investor, sure, but you can still take on risk and invest in whatever you want How is this not a contradictory statement? Are you claiming that anybody can become an accredited investor? That's incorrect, you need to be pretty damn close to the 1% to qualify.
chowells 5y ago
> As they say in poker, “If you’ve been in the game 30 minutes and you don’t know who the patsy is, you’re the patsy.” https://quoteinvestigator.com/2011/07/09/poker-patsy/ https://quoteinvestigator.com/2011/07/09/poker-patsy/ If you can't figure out what scam a regulation is intended to stop, you're going to fall for that scam. If you can't tell who the regulations are there to protect, they're there to protect you.
- hackingforfun 5y ago
  If you miss that some of the laws are literally so the elite can stay in power, and the common folks have restrictions on what they can invest in, then I just can't take the rest of what you say about this subject seriously. FWIW, I also invest in an S&P 500 index, so I'm not totally anti traditional finance.
  - newacct583 5y ago
    That's just a conspiracy theory. I mean, yes, Protection of Entrenched Interests is a real thing, Regulatory Capture is a real thing. There are real issues to discuss there. But to argue that the purpose behind the SEC et. al. is to ensure "the elite can stay in power" or that "common folks are restricted" is just ridiculous tinfoil hattery, sorry. Outrageous scams in crypto are a real and significant threat. Everyone can see that. That they aren't traditional finance is quite clearly because of the regulatory regimes that control them.
    - vbo 5y ago
      Some investments would turn out to be scams and the cheated would decry the lack of oversight, so rigorous oversight is what they got —- since you’re not rich enough to handle risk, we’re going to prevent you from taking any at all. So yeah, the rich get rich and remain unchallanged, while the common folk is protected from scams. Perhaps not a conspiracy per se, but the good ol bureaucratic status quo.
      - lottin 5y ago

airstrike 5y ago

> How is this protecting me? Go read up on the history of securities trading prior to the various acts from the 1930s.

jollybean 5y ago

It's hard to fathom why people wouldn't know why regulations exist. Without regulatory bodies, markets would not exist. This is because regular consumers don't have the energy or ability to evaluate the quality of products or services, so in certain areas (health, safety, finance), where it 'really matters' - we regulate. Without a drug regulatory body, there would be no way to know what drugs work, and the market would be almost entirely scammers. Have a look at 'moisterizers' - it's a ridiculous game of false and misleading information by so called 'reputable' companies using technology totally out of context i.e. 'collagen' in order to be able to put it on the label. There's nary a way to understand what is effective and what is not. It's a completely distorted market. Now, it's just moisturizer, so it doesn't matter. But we don't want the same thing for diabetes drugs, now do we? The financial system is highly, highly regulated because it used to be full of outright scams and the system couldn't grow without it. Integrity is key to all long term growth, it's why we have rules. Now it should be possible to invest in highly speculative, risky things - sure - that should be up to you - but the reason we don't want to allow that in some instances is because the mechanism itself is fraudulent and misrepresentation i.e. a Ponzi Scheme is a Ponzi Scheme and it's bad to have them going around, even if you want to invest in them. The entire field of Crypto thus far has been a giant distraction and waste of time, while there is definitely the possibility of some good coming out of this, it hasn't happened yet, we should be in the experimental stage, not the 'using up more electricity than Argentina stage'.

hackingforfun 5y ago
I can't disagree more. Crypto is a new market that should have a different set of rules, based on new technology, and what is happening now, not in 1933. > Now it should be possible to invest in highly speculative, risky things - sure - that should be up to you This is literally all I'm asking.
- jollybean 5y ago
  "This is literally all I'm asking.:" You're asking to defraud people. (i.e. invest in things that are securities, but without having to follow the securities regulations). Sorry, but no. This is not a matter of just 'risk' to you - you are allowed to take on as much risk as you want - you may need to be an accredited investor, sure, but you can still take on risk and invest in whatever you want. As long as it's not a scam. 'We' (i.e. everyone else) does not want 'you' putting money in giant scam vehicles, they're toxic to a functioning market. If you want to sell/buy/participate in a market for something that is like a security, then it has to follow securities regulations. If you want to sell a drug that says that 'it cures cancer' - it has to be approved. If you want to sell a car, it has to pass safety checks. If you don't want to do those things, then you can go a place like Afghanistan to see how it works out. FYI even the Taliban (!) are trying to fight against fraud because they know it's bad. There is no advantage to to society to skip these regulations. The only advantage to cheating on the regulations, is for early movers, to leverage themselves over dupes in an otherwise zero-sum game. There are opportunities for things that transcend regulation but we don't have any examples of that quite yet. For example, 'some future crypto' (not BTC or ETH) might provide the possibility for less oversight etc..
  - thebean11 5y ago
    > you may need to be an accredited investor, sure, but you can still take on risk and invest in whatever you want How is this not a contradictory statement? Are you claiming that anybody can become an accredited investor? That's incorrect, you need to be pretty damn close to the 1% to qualify.

chowells 5y ago

> As they say in poker, “If you’ve been in the game 30 minutes and you don’t know who the patsy is, you’re the patsy.” https://quoteinvestigator.com/2011/07/09/poker-patsy/ https://quoteinvestigator.com/2011/07/09/poker-patsy/ If you can't figure out what scam a regulation is intended to stop, you're going to fall for that scam. If you can't tell who the regulations are there to protect, they're there to protect you.

hackingforfun 5y ago
If you miss that some of the laws are literally so the elite can stay in power, and the common folks have restrictions on what they can invest in, then I just can't take the rest of what you say about this subject seriously. FWIW, I also invest in an S&P 500 index, so I'm not totally anti traditional finance.
- newacct583 5y ago
  That's just a conspiracy theory. I mean, yes, Protection of Entrenched Interests is a real thing, Regulatory Capture is a real thing. There are real issues to discuss there. But to argue that the purpose behind the SEC et. al. is to ensure "the elite can stay in power" or that "common folks are restricted" is just ridiculous tinfoil hattery, sorry. Outrageous scams in crypto are a real and significant threat. Everyone can see that. That they aren't traditional finance is quite clearly because of the regulatory regimes that control them.
  - vbo 5y ago
    Some investments would turn out to be scams and the cheated would decry the lack of oversight, so rigorous oversight is what they got —- since you’re not rich enough to handle risk, we’re going to prevent you from taking any at all. So yeah, the rich get rich and remain unchallanged, while the common folk is protected from scams. Perhaps not a conspiracy per se, but the good ol bureaucratic status quo.
    - lottin 5y ago