4 ms·

There is a big distance between the unmentioned 0 and your 1. 0.1 - 0.999 - they raised round after round of VC, paying back the previous round with big profit

by z9znz 4y ago

There is a big distance between the unmentioned 0 and your 1. 0.1 - 0.999 - they raised round after round of VC, paying back the previous round with big profits. 1 - they sold the gullible public (which never should have happened - regulators should have prevented the IPO!) on a business model with no real hope of profit.

biggoodwolf 4y ago
Gullible indeed, all those ETFs investing by default in these? Check.
- z9znz 4y ago
  ETFs investing in utterly non-profitable companies does not make it valid. The reason ETFs are putting money in riskier and riskier places is that there is too much money concentrated in a few places, and there are rules as to what % of their investments can be put into one investment.
s1artibartfast 4y ago
Regulators should just be there to ensure the financial statements are accurate, not that a company is a guaranteed safe bet.
- z9znz 4y ago
  There was a time not so long ago when you could never get an ICO to happen if you were not profitable for several years beforehand. Keep in mind that regulation has been relaxed significantly each decade for a long time. There is a political party which exists almost entirely to eliminate regulation, and they boast about it. One would be led to believe that regulation was what was holding us all back from living full lives.
  - s1artibartfast 4y ago
    I'm normally pretty sympathetic to all those positions you disagree with. I think that the state regulation, control, bailouts, and corruption are holding us back. You can have the state pick winners and bail out idiot investors when they lose their shirt. I would rather make individuals and companies responsible for their own good or bad bets. For me, part of that means letting people place their bets with minimal state intervention and guarantees about the bet.
    - WeylandYutani 4y ago
      Social stability needs to be maintained by government even if that means everyone's getting a bail out. When a million people lose their savings it is EVERYONE'S problem. See Roosevelt's New Deal that saved the country (and got America in shape to fight WW2).
    - z9znz 4y ago
      > bailouts In 2008, the bailouts were for the banks and institutions. They did nothing for the people who had already been screwed. Finance and wealthy interest control US policies. By a large margin, the public welfare is funneled upward to a minority with the power to direct and focus lobbying. The individuals on the ground get far less. A free market allows some groups to become so powerful that they can exert forces which prevent competition. Then the free market ceases to exist, and the monopolies take control. Whether this is corporations in an industry or wealthy groups in a population, it is the same. > letting people place their bets with minimal state intervention What is the value of this freedom when all the bets are placed with "institutions" which will rob (/cheat) the investor? Any rock you turn over, you will see preference given to people of power or wealth. The accredited financial institutions have been publicly shown to favor insiders or themselves, for example. Retail investors would be advised to invest in things that the institutions knew were bad by the firms they trusted in and paid for advice to. There is virtually no fairness or mathema†ical equality afforded to everyone in the current systems of government. To believe otherwise is fantasy. If one is in the right group, they have a marked advantage. For the rest, they are almost assured to get much lower results from their efforts.
      - 4y ago

by z9znz 4y ago

biggoodwolf 4y ago

Gullible indeed, all those ETFs investing by default in these? Check.

z9znz 4y ago
ETFs investing in utterly non-profitable companies does not make it valid. The reason ETFs are putting money in riskier and riskier places is that there is too much money concentrated in a few places, and there are rules as to what % of their investments can be put into one investment.

s1artibartfast 4y ago

Regulators should just be there to ensure the financial statements are accurate, not that a company is a guaranteed safe bet.

z9znz 4y ago
There was a time not so long ago when you could never get an ICO to happen if you were not profitable for several years beforehand. Keep in mind that regulation has been relaxed significantly each decade for a long time. There is a political party which exists almost entirely to eliminate regulation, and they boast about it. One would be led to believe that regulation was what was holding us all back from living full lives.
- s1artibartfast 4y ago
  I'm normally pretty sympathetic to all those positions you disagree with. I think that the state regulation, control, bailouts, and corruption are holding us back. You can have the state pick winners and bail out idiot investors when they lose their shirt. I would rather make individuals and companies responsible for their own good or bad bets. For me, part of that means letting people place their bets with minimal state intervention and guarantees about the bet.
  - WeylandYutani 4y ago
    Social stability needs to be maintained by government even if that means everyone's getting a bail out. When a million people lose their savings it is EVERYONE'S problem. See Roosevelt's New Deal that saved the country (and got America in shape to fight WW2).
  - z9znz 4y ago
    > bailouts In 2008, the bailouts were for the banks and institutions. They did nothing for the people who had already been screwed. Finance and wealthy interest control US policies. By a large margin, the public welfare is funneled upward to a minority with the power to direct and focus lobbying. The individuals on the ground get far less. A free market allows some groups to become so powerful that they can exert forces which prevent competition. Then the free market ceases to exist, and the monopolies take control. Whether this is corporations in an industry or wealthy groups in a population, it is the same. > letting people place their bets with minimal state intervention What is the value of this freedom when all the bets are placed with "institutions" which will rob (/cheat) the investor? Any rock you turn over, you will see preference given to people of power or wealth. The accredited financial institutions have been publicly shown to favor insiders or themselves, for example. Retail investors would be advised to invest in things that the institutions knew were bad by the firms they trusted in and paid for advice to. There is virtually no fairness or mathema†ical equality afforded to everyone in the current systems of government. To believe otherwise is fantasy. If one is in the right group, they have a marked advantage. For the rest, they are almost assured to get much lower results from their efforts.
    - 4y ago