5 ms·
I wonder if the "central personality" aspect is the key. Even the promise of massive wealth and clout has failed to unmask Satoshi, so it's largely seen as a s
by hakfoo 3y ago
I wonder if the "central personality" aspect is the key. Even the promise of massive wealth and clout has failed to unmask Satoshi, so it's largely seen as a self-managing system. There's no real figurehead you can say is responsible for it or able to steer it for personal gain at this point.
- latchkey 3y agoMatt Levine talks about this in one of his pieces recently. https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2023-06-07/when-is-a-token-not-a-security https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2023-06-07/when-i... "Some of them did securities offerings, but by the time the SEC noticed they were too entrenched and decentralized and it would have been a pain for the SEC to go after them. Ethereum, most notably, very very clearly did an ICO in 2014, raising about $18.3 million by selling ETH tokens. If they did that today, or in late 2017, the SEC would have some serious questions. But by the time the SEC got around to cracking down on ICOs in 2017, Ethereum was big and decentralized and the SEC would have had a hard time, practically and legally, challenging its 2014 ICO. And so everyone sort of grudgingly concedes that ETH is not a security."