3 ms·

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'

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.
    - vorpalhex 5y ago
      > To be an accredited investor, a person must have an annual income exceeding $200,000 https://www.investopedia.com/terms/a/accreditedinvestor.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/a/accreditedinvestor.asp 2018 Annual Wages Group Wages Top 0.1% of Earners - $2,808,104 Top 1% of Earners - $737,697 Top 5% of Earners - $309,348 Top 10% of Earners - $158,002 (formatting changed to work on HN) from https://www.investopedia.com/personal-finance/how-much-income-puts-you-top-1-5-10/ https://www.investopedia.com/personal-finance/how-much-incom...
      - thebean11 5y ago
        TIL, that's higher than I thought. My overall point still stands though, between 90% and 95% do not qualify..
  - hackingforfun 5y ago
    > You're asking to defraud people. I'm asking for people to have choice. > 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. This is not true. As an accredited investor in the US, I cannot invest in any crypto that I want to due to domestic restrictions. FWIW, I'm not against regulation, I just find it funny that we think laws from 1933 are applicable to any technology released in the future. That seems completely absurd to me. I think crypto should have its own set of regulations. I'm not against the SEC going after specific scams, I think they should do that, but I think people should have choice of what they invest in.
    - 5y ago

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.
  - vorpalhex 5y ago
    > To be an accredited investor, a person must have an annual income exceeding $200,000 https://www.investopedia.com/terms/a/accreditedinvestor.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/a/accreditedinvestor.asp 2018 Annual Wages Group Wages Top 0.1% of Earners - $2,808,104 Top 1% of Earners - $737,697 Top 5% of Earners - $309,348 Top 10% of Earners - $158,002 (formatting changed to work on HN) from https://www.investopedia.com/personal-finance/how-much-income-puts-you-top-1-5-10/ https://www.investopedia.com/personal-finance/how-much-incom...
    - thebean11 5y ago
      TIL, that's higher than I thought. My overall point still stands though, between 90% and 95% do not qualify..
- hackingforfun 5y ago
  > You're asking to defraud people. I'm asking for people to have choice. > 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. This is not true. As an accredited investor in the US, I cannot invest in any crypto that I want to due to domestic restrictions. FWIW, I'm not against regulation, I just find it funny that we think laws from 1933 are applicable to any technology released in the future. That seems completely absurd to me. I think crypto should have its own set of regulations. I'm not against the SEC going after specific scams, I think they should do that, but I think people should have choice of what they invest in.
  - 5y ago