3 ms·

I'd like to believe that the grandparent comment is the top because of this comment. The culture surrounding HN is such that a fair number of commenters find t

by bcj 14y ago

I'd like to believe that the grandparent comment is the top because of this comment. The culture surrounding HN is such that a fair number of commenters find themselves on the wrong side of government regulation, and government regulation often seems (and sometimes is) oblique, arbitrary, and manipulated by special interests. It's always worth considering the circumstances that have led to regulation (and specifically edge cases) as regulation is often a direct response to an actual problem. Even when regulation is outdated or wrong, it is rarely completely wrong.

rayiner 14y ago
So the no-action letter in this case pertains to whether the SEC would treat AngelList as a broker-dealer under §15(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Brokers are people who trade securities on the behalf of others, and the §15(a) applies various requirements to them, ranging from minimum capital requirements to general requirements not to use fraudulent or misleading statements in the sale of securities. Given the central role brokers have occupied as critical intermediaries in securities transactions, it's not really hard to see what precipitated their regulation. Who knows, maybe modern technology will make such intermediaries obsolete and consequently make §15(a) obsolete. We're not there yet, and in the meantime I don't see anything particularly morally outrageous about having to ask the SEC for permission to not adhere to the various broker-dealer requirements in situations where you are arguably functioning as an intermediary. As an aside, regulations are very often oblique, arbitrary, and manipulated by special interests. But have you ever read the CORBA spec? At a certain level its a phenomenon of large-scale human interaction that you have to make peace with. That doesn't mean you shouldn't fight it when it's wrong (we seem to have replaced CORBA with SOAP and JSON and whatnot) but it's useful to understand why things in the world evolve to look the way they do.
- temphn 14y ago
  The CORBA example is an own goal. In software, we can replace outdated specifications without threat of a federal raid. If you want to use a different serialization format, no one is stopping you. But if you want to innovate in any physical world good or financial instrument, you face the possibility of men with guns throwing you in jail. Could not be more different. Has nothing to do with complexity and everything to with the unchecked exercise of power. If executives were free to fire or imprison one regulator every year the situation might be slightly more symmetric. As it is you have a caste of individuals employed for life with the ability to unilaterally order raids, fines, and seizures. Obviously, CORBA's advocates never had power like that -- and that is why CORBA was actually replaced via innovation.

by bcj 14y ago

rayiner 14y ago

So the no-action letter in this case pertains to whether the SEC would treat AngelList as a broker-dealer under §15(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Brokers are people who trade securities on the behalf of others, and the §15(a) applies various requirements to them, ranging from minimum capital requirements to general requirements not to use fraudulent or misleading statements in the sale of securities. Given the central role brokers have occupied as critical intermediaries in securities transactions, it's not really hard to see what precipitated their regulation. Who knows, maybe modern technology will make such intermediaries obsolete and consequently make §15(a) obsolete. We're not there yet, and in the meantime I don't see anything particularly morally outrageous about having to ask the SEC for permission to not adhere to the various broker-dealer requirements in situations where you are arguably functioning as an intermediary. As an aside, regulations are very often oblique, arbitrary, and manipulated by special interests. But have you ever read the CORBA spec? At a certain level its a phenomenon of large-scale human interaction that you have to make peace with. That doesn't mean you shouldn't fight it when it's wrong (we seem to have replaced CORBA with SOAP and JSON and whatnot) but it's useful to understand why things in the world evolve to look the way they do.

temphn 14y ago
The CORBA example is an own goal. In software, we can replace outdated specifications without threat of a federal raid. If you want to use a different serialization format, no one is stopping you. But if you want to innovate in any physical world good or financial instrument, you face the possibility of men with guns throwing you in jail. Could not be more different. Has nothing to do with complexity and everything to with the unchecked exercise of power. If executives were free to fire or imprison one regulator every year the situation might be slightly more symmetric. As it is you have a caste of individuals employed for life with the ability to unilaterally order raids, fines, and seizures. Obviously, CORBA's advocates never had power like that -- and that is why CORBA was actually replaced via innovation.