5 ms·
I'll just leave this here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Securities_Act_of_1933#Purpose https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Securities_Act_of_1933#Purpose > The prim
by airstrike 5y ago
I'll just leave this here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Securities_Act_of_1933#Purpose https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Securities_Act_of_1933#Purpose
> The primary purpose of the '33 Act is to ensure that buyers of securities receive complete and accurate information before they invest in securities. Unlike state blue sky laws, which impose merit reviews, the '33 Act embraces a disclosure philosophy, meaning that in theory, it is not illegal to sell a bad investment, as long as all the facts are accurately disclosed. A company that is required to register under the '33 act must create a registration statement, which includes a prospectus, with copious information about the security, the company, the business, including audited financial statements. The company, the underwriter and other individuals signing the registration statement are strictly liable for any inaccurate statements in the document. This extremely high level of liability exposure drives an enormous effort, known as "due diligence", to ensure that the document is complete and accurate. The law bolsters and helps to maintain investor confidence which in turn supports the stock market.
- hackingforfun 5y agoStocks were never open source code. Anyone can research a crypto, online. We don't need a walled garden for them.
- toomuchtodo 5y agoCrypto falls under regulation when regulators believe it falls within the scope of their regulatory obligations. Whether the code is open source is immaterial. This is the result of the "code is law" gang running into the "law is law" gang.
- hackingforfun 5y agoSecurities laws were about disclosures, right? Since many cryptos are open source, how is that immaterial?
- jollybean 5y agoBecause the value of the crypto is ostensibly based on the performance of an underlying asset, hence then need disclosure. It doesn't matter if you call it a 'stock or a crypto' - it's a security either way, is the point.
- hackingforfun 5y agoMy point is disclosures are different in stocks vs crypto and we shouldn't just group them all into one category. I'm just wondering, do you think that we should never refine our securities laws for new technology, ever?
- toomuchtodo 5y agoCrypto falls neatly into either a securities or commodities basket from a regulatory perspective (depending on implementation), no new category required. It seems, from a cursory glance, those asking for new regulation are asking for the avoidance of regulation, not similar regulation to other asset classes. That isn't regulation, and hence the tone of responses to these sorts of efforts by the crypto "industry". Even worse is the stance "our technology doesn't support regulatory intervention" (ie smart contracts that have no support for when regulators or the judiciary intervene).
- hackingforfun 5y agoI would like there to at least be clarity on which basket it falls into, if not a new category.
- verdverm 5y agoIt's case-by-case, not one size fits all. Hence why there needs to be analysis, disclosure, and regulations being followed
- 5y ago