4 ms·

Right now, IPOs are done at the whim of investment bankers. Look at the league tables [1], there's effectively a cartel of a handful of (mainly US) banks that b

by t_mann 4y ago

Right now, IPOs are done at the whim of investment bankers. Look at the league tables [1], there's effectively a cartel of a handful of (mainly US) banks that basically dominate how corporations can raise money. They exert an amount of global control over this space that goes far beyond what would be required to fulfill the public interest of protecting small investors. European countries have tried (and largely failed) to establish players that could at least compete with the US banks and provide an alternative for European companies. If the second largest economic zone in the world doesn't manage to get a seat at the big tables, something seems off, and it probably is (see eg [2]). Current web3 token issuance lacks regulation altogether (and is unsurprisingly dominated by scams), but there's no reason to be completely against the creation of new forms of financing, even if that requires effort in the form of new regulations. [1] https://markets.ft.com/data/league-tables/tables-and-trends https://markets.ft.com/data/league-tables/tables-and-trends [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldman_Sachs_controversies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldman_Sachs_controversies

itsoktocry 4y ago
>Right now, IPOs are done at the whim of investment bankers. Look at the league tables [1], there's effectively a cartel of a handful of (mainly US) banks that basically dominate how corporations can raise money. This is true, but is it bad? Are there companies anywhere having difficulty raising money? >European countries have tried (and largely failed) to establish players that could at least compete with the US banks and provide an alternative for European companies. Yes, this is a problem with some regulation, and why "breaking up the banks" sentiment in the US is not thought through by proponents. Countries that allow their banking sector to grow will dominate (read: China). >but there's no reason to be completely against the creation of new forms of financing True, but no matter the mechanism, raising money from smaller/more investors will always be filled with scams. We're seeing that play out in Web3; people are losing their shirts because they have no idea what they're investing in or they're willing to risk money to get rich scamming the people coming in after them. There are higher costs of regulation with more investors.
- t_mann 4y ago
  All cartels exist mainly to the benefit of the insiders. I don't see why crypto should be inherently more prone to scams (after all, the use of funds on the blockchain is actually fairly transparent). Most instruments that are now considered traditional were at some point in their history ripe with questionable behavior (modern banking was arguably born when depositories ran out of gold and comforted customers with paper bills - funnily enough, that was also enabled by new bookkeeping/ledger methodologies). The antidote is sensible regulation, not demonisation.
cuteboy19 4y ago
This is a thing in crypto too. Getting listed on Binance is your dream if you are a shitcoin peddler. See any CZ tweet if you are not convinced
- t_mann 4y ago
  New markets, new players, of course. The thing is that Binance is not going to replace Goldman Sachs, but if it becomes a viable alternative at some point, then we would have more players overall.

by t_mann 4y ago

itsoktocry 4y ago

>Right now, IPOs are done at the whim of investment bankers. Look at the league tables [1], there's effectively a cartel of a handful of (mainly US) banks that basically dominate how corporations can raise money. This is true, but is it bad? Are there companies anywhere having difficulty raising money? >European countries have tried (and largely failed) to establish players that could at least compete with the US banks and provide an alternative for European companies. Yes, this is a problem with some regulation, and why "breaking up the banks" sentiment in the US is not thought through by proponents. Countries that allow their banking sector to grow will dominate (read: China). >but there's no reason to be completely against the creation of new forms of financing True, but no matter the mechanism, raising money from smaller/more investors will always be filled with scams. We're seeing that play out in Web3; people are losing their shirts because they have no idea what they're investing in or they're willing to risk money to get rich scamming the people coming in after them. There are higher costs of regulation with more investors.

t_mann 4y ago
All cartels exist mainly to the benefit of the insiders. I don't see why crypto should be inherently more prone to scams (after all, the use of funds on the blockchain is actually fairly transparent). Most instruments that are now considered traditional were at some point in their history ripe with questionable behavior (modern banking was arguably born when depositories ran out of gold and comforted customers with paper bills - funnily enough, that was also enabled by new bookkeeping/ledger methodologies). The antidote is sensible regulation, not demonisation.

cuteboy19 4y ago

This is a thing in crypto too. Getting listed on Binance is your dream if you are a shitcoin peddler. See any CZ tweet if you are not convinced

t_mann 4y ago
New markets, new players, of course. The thing is that Binance is not going to replace Goldman Sachs, but if it becomes a viable alternative at some point, then we would have more players overall.