4 ms·

I think they are referring to accredited investor laws.

vbo 5y ago
Correct. I’m not American and not subject to them, but I believe people should make their own decisions, while the protection offered by the state should come in the form of education and catching bad actors. Restricting access is a form of throwing one’s hands in the air and deciding the issue is too complicated so we’ll just hide it under the rug. This goes beyond accredited investor status. All too often laws and regulations hide issues under the rug rather than actually addressing them, perhaps because the systemic changes required to fit a framework around the world are too difficult to achieve vs fitting the world inside the framework. We’re trapped in legacy code.
- hackingforfun 5y ago
  > I believe people should make their own decisions, while the protection offered by the state should come in the form of education and catching bad actors. I agree with this. I think education and prosecuting scam projects are both good. Although I suppose one could also argue that to catch bad actors ahead of time, there needs to be a way for new cryptos to file with the SEC, to then be audited to see if they are legit. However, I just don't see the SEC being capable of that, at least not yet. Crypto technology is moving too fast for them to keep up. We also still don't have clarity on some basic questions like if Bitcoin or Ethereum are securities or not. Former members of the SEC have alluded that they are not [1], but there are no clear statements on this yet from the SEC. Maybe there need to be more legal precedents set, like from the Ripple case currently going on [2], in order more clarity to be provided and for the path forward to become more clear. [1] https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/14/bitcoin-and-ethereum-are-not-securities-but-some-cryptocurrencies-may-be-sec-official-says.html https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/14/bitcoin-and-ethereum-are-not... [2] https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2020-338 https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2020-338

vbo 5y ago

Correct. I’m not American and not subject to them, but I believe people should make their own decisions, while the protection offered by the state should come in the form of education and catching bad actors. Restricting access is a form of throwing one’s hands in the air and deciding the issue is too complicated so we’ll just hide it under the rug. This goes beyond accredited investor status. All too often laws and regulations hide issues under the rug rather than actually addressing them, perhaps because the systemic changes required to fit a framework around the world are too difficult to achieve vs fitting the world inside the framework. We’re trapped in legacy code.

hackingforfun 5y ago
> I believe people should make their own decisions, while the protection offered by the state should come in the form of education and catching bad actors. I agree with this. I think education and prosecuting scam projects are both good. Although I suppose one could also argue that to catch bad actors ahead of time, there needs to be a way for new cryptos to file with the SEC, to then be audited to see if they are legit. However, I just don't see the SEC being capable of that, at least not yet. Crypto technology is moving too fast for them to keep up. We also still don't have clarity on some basic questions like if Bitcoin or Ethereum are securities or not. Former members of the SEC have alluded that they are not [1], but there are no clear statements on this yet from the SEC. Maybe there need to be more legal precedents set, like from the Ripple case currently going on [2], in order more clarity to be provided and for the path forward to become more clear. [1] https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/14/bitcoin-and-ethereum-are-not-securities-but-some-cryptocurrencies-may-be-sec-official-says.html https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/14/bitcoin-and-ethereum-are-not... [2] https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2020-338 https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2020-338