4 ms·
The government made this thing called "accredited investor" which is just code for not one of the poors. I wish it wasn't necessary for the poors to use crypto
by notch656c 4y ago
The government made this thing called "accredited investor" which is just code for not one of the poors.
I wish it wasn't necessary for the poors to use crypto to moonshot on various grifts.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- stouset 4y agoConsidered from an alternate perspective, the thing that has allowed crypto to become the massive grift that is has is the ability for anyone and everyone to speculate on it without any kind of oversight, regulation, insider trading protection, or guard rails of any kind. I won't speak specifically to the current reglatory definition of "accredited investor" which is certainly worthy of some criticism, but the "investments" that being one opens you up to are—on the whole—significantly worse than just parking your money in a whole-market index fund. The few opportunities that are actually worth investing in are rare and generally require being on a first-name basis with the right people. Not to mention, of course, knowing a priori who those right people are. Merely having a bunch of dollars in the bank and wanting outsized returns puts you squarely in the realm of suckers who will be soon parted from their money by both hucksters and well-meaning idiots. Having almost no dollars in the bank puts you at an even worse disadvantage.
- notch656c 4y agoYes I believe the poors ought to be able to drop bands on a well meaning idiot just as easily as the truck stop stripper.
- jakelazaroff 4y agoWhat exactly is the upside of the scenario you're envisioning? Right now it just sounds like you wish the accredited investor rule didn't exist because it makes it harder to scam poor people.
- notch656c 4y agoI would use "scam" in the sense of offering unregistered securities. Not in the sense of willful fraud. In that sense yes I think the poors should have as much right to buy into a scam as the accredited investor.
- jakelazaroff 4y agoAgain, what’s the upside here? The end result of that scenario is that money gets redistributed from poor people to people offering unregistered securities. Why is society better off if we allow this to happen?
- notch656c 4y agoWhy is society better off when I'm allowed to drop bands on the truck stop stripper instead of buying toys for my kid? The individual should not be forced at all steps to selflessly act in the benefit of society. There are a non-zero number of scenarios where unregistered securities have paid off to investors. Individuals should not be forced at every step to prove their acts benefit collectively society.
- stouset 4y agoBecause society has a demonstrated track record of "actively letting people get scammed en masse" resulting in widespread misery and an enormously disproportionate number of resources needing to be committed to enforcement, and the current status quo—while inarguably suboptimal—is clearly an improvement? The libertarian ideal is akin to assuming that people are frictionless spheres operating in a vacuum instead of recognizing that a significant amount of laws and regulation are written in metaphorical blood, and simply striking them from the books just invites a return to the conditions that necessitated them in the first place.
- notch656c 4y agoWhat are the conditions that "necessitated" that someone with a $1B value mansion as their primary residence and $999,000 in the bank isn't qualified to invest in these securities while someone with $1,000,001 in the bank is?
- nradov 4y agoIn practice almost anyone can become an "accredited investor" by simply lying on the form. I know people who did this in order to invest in pre-IPO stock offerings. Many financial services companies don't bother to verify investor qualifications. (To be clear I am not recommending that anyone break the law.)
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]