3 ms·

>. These are simply the blue sky securities > They're just fun little tokens. How can they possibly be securities if they don't hold any interest in the busin

>. These are simply the blue sky securities > They're just fun little tokens. How can they possibly be securities if they don't hold any interest in the business nor are they a financial asset, but rather just a token? You're contradicting yourself here. Maybe I like tokens. I put in my labor to get my cash fair and square, I'd rather not have some regulatory chump tell me I can't buy a token that I know may be worthless. People buy beany babies too, and some enjoy it.

arcticbull 5y ago
> How can they possibly be securities if they don't hold any interest in the business nor are they a financial asset. This is an astute observation. I meant that they are the spiritual successor, framed specifically to avoid regulation. > I put in my labor to get my cash fair and square, I'd rather not have some regulatory chump tell me I can't buy a token that I know may be worthless. Regulators tell you what you can and cannot buy every single day. They're the reason the rivers aren't on fire, there's not lead in your food and there isn't asbestos in your walls. However, these things are so normal now that folks lose sight of the value of regulations, which is likely why we're so intent on recapitulating every single disaster that brought us the modern financial regulatory environment. This particular one ended due to its contribution to the Great Depression. Your argument didn't hold water in 2010 once we realized how sub-prime mortgages worked and I strongly suspect it won't hold water in a few more years. Your freedom to buy whatever toxic garbage you want ends where it compromises the stability of financial markets. It's a question of scale. A story in three parts: 1. "You can't tell me what to buy, regulatory chump!" 2. goes broke (:shocked-pikachu:) 3. "Whelp, off to the publicly funded poor-house. Where were the regulators?!"
- notch656a 5y ago
  >This particular one ended due to its contribution to the Great Depression. This is a very distorted view of the great depression. I'd argue the great depression's biggest factors were overextension on debt and poor management of fiat and the banking system. Buying tokens with free and clear cash is really is a bet a tangential comparison to contributions of the depression. >Your argument didn't hold water in 2010 once we realized how sub-prime mortgages worked and I strongly suspect it won't hold water in a few more years. Your freedom to buy whatever toxic garbage you want ends where it compromises the stability of financial markets. It's a question of scale. Much of the subprime-mortgage disaster was a result of poor understanding of investors of risk. I agree investors should be made more aware of risk. Markets can tolerate risk, after all startups are funded all the time and somehow they don't tank the economy. Many of these startups are funded completely by unaccredited 'investors' too -- ex: like a husband/wife team pouring their savings into a restaurant. >"You can't tell me what to buy, regulatory chump!" goes broke "Whelp, off to the publicly funded poor-house." People can spend all their money on beany babies, the claw arcade game, gambling, whatever. Let's not pretend everybody is off betting the farm on these tokens. >sub-prime mortgages Are people offering 100k+ variable interest loans to unemployed persons to buy these tokens? >"Whelp, off to the publicly funded poor-house." Whether you believe in welfare is a separate issue. People don't become slave of government just because if they mis-act they may end up on welfare.
  - arcticbull 5y ago
    > Whether you believe in welfare is a separate issue. I actually disagree. I represent that the social safety net is the state's interest in avoiding the bankruptcy of it's citizens. In an economic model that advocates for free risk taking and falls back on a welfare system, you're privatizing gains and socializing risks. Tempering risk taking while providing a social safety net seems like a reasonable balance to me. However, I appreciate your perspective!
    - notch656a 5y ago
      If welfare means that government gets to decide what tokens you buy, then that's an incredible argument against welfare. Of course, I don't actually think welfare should mean this. Personally I would happily opt-out of the social safety nets and sign my own death warrant if it meant I could spend my money more freely. Sadly only a few groups can opt out of social security in US (I have looked into it, but it would require me to join a few select religions which have existed since at least the 1960s). >However, I appreciate your perspective! Likewise.

arcticbull 5y ago

> How can they possibly be securities if they don't hold any interest in the business nor are they a financial asset. This is an astute observation. I meant that they are the spiritual successor, framed specifically to avoid regulation. > I put in my labor to get my cash fair and square, I'd rather not have some regulatory chump tell me I can't buy a token that I know may be worthless. Regulators tell you what you can and cannot buy every single day. They're the reason the rivers aren't on fire, there's not lead in your food and there isn't asbestos in your walls. However, these things are so normal now that folks lose sight of the value of regulations, which is likely why we're so intent on recapitulating every single disaster that brought us the modern financial regulatory environment. This particular one ended due to its contribution to the Great Depression. Your argument didn't hold water in 2010 once we realized how sub-prime mortgages worked and I strongly suspect it won't hold water in a few more years. Your freedom to buy whatever toxic garbage you want ends where it compromises the stability of financial markets. It's a question of scale. A story in three parts: 1. "You can't tell me what to buy, regulatory chump!" 2. goes broke (:shocked-pikachu:) 3. "Whelp, off to the publicly funded poor-house. Where were the regulators?!"

notch656a 5y ago
>This particular one ended due to its contribution to the Great Depression. This is a very distorted view of the great depression. I'd argue the great depression's biggest factors were overextension on debt and poor management of fiat and the banking system. Buying tokens with free and clear cash is really is a bet a tangential comparison to contributions of the depression. >Your argument didn't hold water in 2010 once we realized how sub-prime mortgages worked and I strongly suspect it won't hold water in a few more years. Your freedom to buy whatever toxic garbage you want ends where it compromises the stability of financial markets. It's a question of scale. Much of the subprime-mortgage disaster was a result of poor understanding of investors of risk. I agree investors should be made more aware of risk. Markets can tolerate risk, after all startups are funded all the time and somehow they don't tank the economy. Many of these startups are funded completely by unaccredited 'investors' too -- ex: like a husband/wife team pouring their savings into a restaurant. >"You can't tell me what to buy, regulatory chump!" goes broke "Whelp, off to the publicly funded poor-house." People can spend all their money on beany babies, the claw arcade game, gambling, whatever. Let's not pretend everybody is off betting the farm on these tokens. >sub-prime mortgages Are people offering 100k+ variable interest loans to unemployed persons to buy these tokens? >"Whelp, off to the publicly funded poor-house." Whether you believe in welfare is a separate issue. People don't become slave of government just because if they mis-act they may end up on welfare.
- arcticbull 5y ago
  > Whether you believe in welfare is a separate issue. I actually disagree. I represent that the social safety net is the state's interest in avoiding the bankruptcy of it's citizens. In an economic model that advocates for free risk taking and falls back on a welfare system, you're privatizing gains and socializing risks. Tempering risk taking while providing a social safety net seems like a reasonable balance to me. However, I appreciate your perspective!
  - notch656a 5y ago
    If welfare means that government gets to decide what tokens you buy, then that's an incredible argument against welfare. Of course, I don't actually think welfare should mean this. Personally I would happily opt-out of the social safety nets and sign my own death warrant if it meant I could spend my money more freely. Sadly only a few groups can opt out of social security in US (I have looked into it, but it would require me to join a few select religions which have existed since at least the 1960s). >However, I appreciate your perspective! Likewise.