China's Central Bank Bans ICOs(techcrunch.com)
techcrunch.com
China's Central Bank Bans ICOs
https://techcrunch.com/2017/09/04/chinas-central-bank-has-banned-icos/amp/
361 comments
Maybe in the short term, longer term it is no trouble. ICOs are far from the main use case for Ethereum. Speculation is driven by the price not close to matching the price if/when the technology matures. If anything, most ICOs pull money from Ethereum, they don't make the price go up.
Being interested in tokens for their "features" not the price is very archaic. This also does not happen with stocks anymore: People hold for a few months/days/minutes, then sell, they don't sit on stock for many years like we used to.
My guess: China will allow ICOs after drafting up proper legislation and regulation. It would not benefit China's economy to blanket ban a new emerging technology. They just want to prevent crypto as a way to move money out of China, take a cut of the profit.
Another guess: Regulation will be good for established players (like Ethereum and 2016/2017 ICOs), but bad for speculators and newcomers. It will thus shoot past its intended goal of protecting investors: Those who like to gamble with money they can't afford to lose will find other get-rich-quick schemes unrelated to crypto. In Las Vegas you are actually sure to eventually lose all your money.
Being interested in tokens for their "features" not the price is very archaic. This also does not happen with stocks anymore: People hold for a few months/days/minutes, then sell, they don't sit on stock for many years like we used to.
My guess: China will allow ICOs after drafting up proper legislation and regulation. It would not benefit China's economy to blanket ban a new emerging technology. They just want to prevent crypto as a way to move money out of China, take a cut of the profit.
Another guess: Regulation will be good for established players (like Ethereum and 2016/2017 ICOs), but bad for speculators and newcomers. It will thus shoot past its intended goal of protecting investors: Those who like to gamble with money they can't afford to lose will find other get-rich-quick schemes unrelated to crypto. In Las Vegas you are actually sure to eventually lose all your money.
it would benefit China's economy if a bubble were to pop and wipe out huge amounts of savings
my guess: China will not allow ICOs but maybe after 10 years or so, blockchains and smart contracts will quietly infiltrate boring business use cases and financial services. especially if they can turn it into a centralized tool for control.
what better authoritarian tool could there be than a centralized ledger of all economic transactions, run by the government. in the name of reducing fraud/laundering/crime you could have absolute visibility and regulatory control on all economic activity.
EDIT: spelling
my guess: China will not allow ICOs but maybe after 10 years or so, blockchains and smart contracts will quietly infiltrate boring business use cases and financial services. especially if they can turn it into a centralized tool for control.
what better authoritarian tool could there be than a centralized ledger of all economic transactions, run by the government. in the name of reducing fraud/laundering/crime you could have absolute visibility and regulatory control on all economic activity.
EDIT: spelling
If the ledger is centralized, what is the advantage of using blockchain?
probably none. that is a different discussion. there were many better solutions than http for the web, hotly debated, but http became the defacto standard. betamax vs vhs. lots of reasons why inferior technology sometimes wins mind/market share
i dont drink the blockchain kool aid myself as a silver bullet for every problem, read IBM's hyperledger marketing materials and they try to make a case for centralized permissioned blockchain. ymmv.
but if millions of your citizens are using blockchains, as an authoritative regime, you probably will want to control its use. you arent particularly interested in the best tech solution to a problem. just control.
and lest anyone think i am abusive of china, i fully expect the US to highly regulate the hell out of this eventually ... if not now under the Tweeter in Chief, when the Dems get control again.
i dont drink the blockchain kool aid myself as a silver bullet for every problem, read IBM's hyperledger marketing materials and they try to make a case for centralized permissioned blockchain. ymmv.
but if millions of your citizens are using blockchains, as an authoritative regime, you probably will want to control its use. you arent particularly interested in the best tech solution to a problem. just control.
and lest anyone think i am abusive of china, i fully expect the US to highly regulate the hell out of this eventually ... if not now under the Tweeter in Chief, when the Dems get control again.
It will slow the crazy growth if ICOs are regulated in some countries, but it may also prevents a total collapse of the whole unhealthy ICO bubble that we've seen this year.
You're also right with regards to speculation - it seems to me like most buyers of ICO tokens don't care about the project at all, they merely want to make a quick buck by selling the tokens after the crowdsale at a higher price.
Finally somebody in position of power stepped in to stop this mad online casino. I was not expecting this sensible move from China, was hoping EU or US would lead the way on regulating this crypto fraud. I hope Fed/ECB follow the Chinese Central Bank and ban ICOs too and start regulating crypto and enforcing some basic rules.
Did you not get the SEC memo?
The US doesn't have to ban ICOs as most of them are securities and unregistered selling of securities is already illegal.
The US doesn't have to ban ICOs as most of them are securities and unregistered selling of securities is already illegal.
That SEC memo was weak. They should have made much more forceful statement. Thousands (likely tens of thousands) of US citizens are still investing in ICOs, there needs to be much stronger action taken to stop their gambling.
No, the SEC memo wasn't weak.
It basically said "we are watching this space" which will frighten anybody who knows that the SEC isn't in a hurry to investigate.
They can get you for things from years past (IIRC 10), so they don't have to rush things.
It basically said "we are watching this space" which will frighten anybody who knows that the SEC isn't in a hurry to investigate.
They can get you for things from years past (IIRC 10), so they don't have to rush things.
Because you and the SEC know much better than all of them?
You know we're talking about the same SEC that didn't saw the real estate bubble coming in 2007/08 (size > trillions, CDOs are obviously fine) or the dotcom bubble in 2000 (size > trillions, they approved the IPOs, right)?
If so, please give me reasons (instead of opinions or references to SEC "authority") as to why the ICOs in a 175 bn market are "dangerous".
You know we're talking about the same SEC that didn't saw the real estate bubble coming in 2007/08 (size > trillions, CDOs are obviously fine) or the dotcom bubble in 2000 (size > trillions, they approved the IPOs, right)?
If so, please give me reasons (instead of opinions or references to SEC "authority") as to why the ICOs in a 175 bn market are "dangerous".
If you want to learn more about the history what you want to look for is "Blue Sky Laws" there's a brief history here:
http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?artic...
The context was unsophisticated investors were being exploited without appreciating the risks involved. They thought they were investing when they were essentially gambling and the underlying security was essentially worthless.
http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?artic...
The context was unsophisticated investors were being exploited without appreciating the risks involved. They thought they were investing when they were essentially gambling and the underlying security was essentially worthless.
My opinion is not important. The issue is lots of unsophisticated investors are betting their savings / money they can't afford to lose on cryptocurrency in hopes to flip their investment quickly and get rich. This is something which should be regulated so you can't just randomly dump your IRA/401k to buy some random cryptocurrency generated over a weekend by some person in a garage with shell company in Cayman Islands.
A guy who has his own garage would have some assets... which would be a step up for most ICOs.
If someone has the knowledge to create a cryptocurrency in a weekend, in a garage, and have the foresight to operate from a friendly jurisdiction, and convinces people to buy it; then please let me know who that person is so I can invest in them. I'd love to get them out of a garage and into an office to see what they can really do.
I can create a new cryptocurrency over a weekend. It's not really that hard and most of these ICOs are just copycats with few parameter changes. Projects which actually develop something new are very few so kudos to them. Majority are just quick copies of existing code and rebranding.
No. 2013 was a lot of clones of bitcoin with a few parameters changed. Nowadays ICOs I'm seeing involve a lot of very hard work.
The risk is that the teams may way under-estimate how much work it is (And I think that's what's going to cause them to fail)
but they are a lot more ambitious than you are characterizing.
The risk is that the teams may way under-estimate how much work it is (And I think that's what's going to cause them to fail)
but they are a lot more ambitious than you are characterizing.
> Nowadays ICOs I'm seeing involve a lot of very hard work.
For example? What ICO idea is not a previously failed startup? Distributed file storage that's been built a few times and each time turned out to be painfully slow and impractical? An iOS and Android port of the wallet software? Yet another browser?
For example? What ICO idea is not a previously failed startup? Distributed file storage that's been built a few times and each time turned out to be painfully slow and impractical? An iOS and Android port of the wallet software? Yet another browser?
This doesn't appear to be an accurate description of the ICO market as it exists. The hardest work in ICOs is the marketing. At the back end, they literally put in the fine print that the thing you just bought is worthless.
https://davidgerard.co.uk/blockchain/icos-magic-beans-and-bu...
Look up the EOS fine print. They took down the PDF, but I kept a spare:
https://davidgerard.co.uk/blockchain/references/EOS%20Token%...
TODO this evening: write up a blog post on the ICO for (I am not making this up) synthetic rhino horn dick pills.
https://davidgerard.co.uk/blockchain/icos-magic-beans-and-bu...
Look up the EOS fine print. They took down the PDF, but I kept a spare:
https://davidgerard.co.uk/blockchain/references/EOS%20Token%...
TODO this evening: write up a blog post on the ICO for (I am not making this up) synthetic rhino horn dick pills.
It's literally saying "Give us your money and we will give you nothing in return"! WTF?!
And EOS has been one of the biggest ICOs. Also, despite the "no US citizens" bit, it's been advertising to the general public in the US (and in the UK). They are selling an ERC-20 magic bean to be traded on the bubble machines, and both buyers and sellers are going nod-nod wink-wink.
Offtopic, but I just finished reading your book, and you, sir, are very eloquent.
No it is still the same as Bitcoin clones in 2013.
These days ICOs are cloning the same smart contract template and just making small edits to it.
Most of the time they barely have any other code than just the slightly edited smart contract template and white paper which is also pretty much a copy paste with buzz words relevant to their niche.
And based on that they are raising millions of dollars.
Of course there are couple of exceptions of projects that actually seem to have some tech foundation (like Sia for example) but these are rare. Scam copy cats without any tech are majority of ICOs.
Their reasoning is "we have an idea, let's raise millions of dollars and we will hire bunch of devs to write the software". Mostly founders are non technical "idea people" so I would doubt their ability to even know if their idea is feasible.
Projects which start with strong technical foundations and don't try to raise money to build their tech (putting cart in front of the horse) are the solid ones. Projects which have no tech and raise money first, those are not likely to succeed imho.
These days ICOs are cloning the same smart contract template and just making small edits to it.
Most of the time they barely have any other code than just the slightly edited smart contract template and white paper which is also pretty much a copy paste with buzz words relevant to their niche.
And based on that they are raising millions of dollars.
Of course there are couple of exceptions of projects that actually seem to have some tech foundation (like Sia for example) but these are rare. Scam copy cats without any tech are majority of ICOs.
Their reasoning is "we have an idea, let's raise millions of dollars and we will hire bunch of devs to write the software". Mostly founders are non technical "idea people" so I would doubt their ability to even know if their idea is feasible.
Projects which start with strong technical foundations and don't try to raise money to build their tech (putting cart in front of the horse) are the solid ones. Projects which have no tech and raise money first, those are not likely to succeed imho.
From an HN link just under two weeks ago - http://build-a-co.in/
(https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15077117)
You can build an altcoin in basically no time, on-demand using a web frontend. How hard the shell company piece is I have no idea.
It really doesn't take a lot of talent or hard work to launch a coin from your garage these days.
(https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15077117)
You can build an altcoin in basically no time, on-demand using a web frontend. How hard the shell company piece is I have no idea.
It really doesn't take a lot of talent or hard work to launch a coin from your garage these days.
Right. Now convince me to buy the coins, that's the challenge.
At the moment, the convincing doesn't seem to need to be very much, particularly where ICOs are involved. Copy someone else's white paper, post in a few forums with the word ICO splashed around liberally, and Bob's your uncle.
I think that's kinda why people are welcoming this move - there's a lot of trash coins and trash ICOs with no hope of anything ever coming from them, with a relatively low input of time and effort. But because they offer trade-able tokens and some of them might take off, and at least some of them might get a hype-cycle and increase in value whether there's any underlying value or not, and it's all new, shiny, crypto-magic-money...
I think that's kinda why people are welcoming this move - there's a lot of trash coins and trash ICOs with no hope of anything ever coming from them, with a relatively low input of time and effort. But because they offer trade-able tokens and some of them might take off, and at least some of them might get a hype-cycle and increase in value whether there's any underlying value or not, and it's all new, shiny, crypto-magic-money...
I'm not sure this argument holds much weight. All investments have inherent risk. It's the job of the investors to assume how much risk they're taking. You cannot ban all digital currencies simply because a large amount of ICOs are poorly thought through, if not malicious. That would block a huge amount of innovation in a technology with huge potential to revolutionize many markets, if not all markets.
It's the equivalent of banning startups to protect investors from stupid/malicious founders, which has obvious negative effects on the economy. And with crowdfunding making its way to startup investment, it's not a reach to compare the two.
It's the equivalent of banning startups to protect investors from stupid/malicious founders, which has obvious negative effects on the economy. And with crowdfunding making its way to startup investment, it's not a reach to compare the two.
In this subthread I am arguing that someone who can create an altcoin or ICO from their home in a weekend is not necessarily a financial genius who should be paid millions, as it's fairly easy to do.
In other subthreads I am saying why I think the ban on ICOs might be welcomed, even if it could take the good down with the bad. I'm not arguing in any thread for an outright ban on digital currencies.
In other subthreads I am saying why I think the ban on ICOs might be welcomed, even if it could take the good down with the bad. I'm not arguing in any thread for an outright ban on digital currencies.
You only argued a portion of the point I was making. Simply making a cryptocurrency isn't enough. Differentiating in a way where I would be convinced to buy it, now that will obviously take genius since the mere creation of a cryptocurrency is commodity code. And it's not fair to say that just launching an ICO will mean an influx of money either, that is, token buyers are just shoving money into anything, because I can show you failed ICOs as well.
You took the comment literally. I think OP's point is still valid. There should be regulations around sophisticated scams.
Most of these ICOs are utter garbage and the only reason people "invest" in a garbage coin is because they think there is some greater fool that will buy it off them.
To give them credit people have made many times their money buying and reselling but it would be idiotic to let this madness continue.
To give them credit people have made many times their money buying and reselling but it would be idiotic to let this madness continue.
>it would be idiotic to let this madness continue.
Why? Inevitably the fools will just run out of money.
This "problem" seems to take care of itself.
Why? Inevitably the fools will just run out of money.
This "problem" seems to take care of itself.
Because these "fools" once they run out of money will be out on streets taking social security.
Then it becomes our problem again.
Then it becomes our problem again.
Isn't moral hazard awesome?
Yup, it is. Without something akin to moral hazard, we'd have a much more risk averse society, much slower economy etc.
We'd also have hoards of people starving in the street, as humans are not good at long term planning, or risk assessment.
So yeah, I'm all for "moral hazard".
We'd also have hoards of people starving in the street, as humans are not good at long term planning, or risk assessment.
So yeah, I'm all for "moral hazard".
Then force them to save a certain amount per month. What they do with their disposable income should be left to their discretion.
So now you are going to decide what consenting adults can do with their money, by deciding they can't invest in ICOs and other scam^H^H^H^H unregulated schemes until they have put enough away to satisfy you.
I'm not sure this is qualitatively different to a ban, really.
I'm not sure this is qualitatively different to a ban, really.
Better to force them to save a minority of their income than start micromanaging their entire spending with laws banning this or that spending.
I'm really not sure I see a difference, if you're going to start from the absolutist position that the state needs to butt out.
Either way, bans or forcing provision for retirement etc, you're taking the position that someone else does know best, and that they need protecting from their own spending behaviour. After that it's just a matter of degree.
Either way, bans or forcing provision for retirement etc, you're taking the position that someone else does know best, and that they need protecting from their own spending behaviour. After that it's just a matter of degree.
My position is that there should be no social safety net provided at the taxpayer's expense. If one is going to argue that we ought to provide a safety net, and ought to limit people's right to decide how to live their own life to prevent this safety net from being unduly burdened, then I would respond that even if one were to accept that assumption, a less disruptive way of meeting this goal would be with a forced saving mandate, rather than trying to prevent them from bankrupting themselves in a roundabout way, through laws that prevent spending on allegedly frivolous/addictive ends.
But of course I don't accept their underlying argument at all. Just making the point that even if one did, their solution is not optimal.
But of course I don't accept their underlying argument at all. Just making the point that even if one did, their solution is not optimal.
Blue sky laws exist for a reason. Go ahead and google the term.
Yeah, what's with consenting adults freely and willingly contracting with each others. I'm glad the powers that be put an end to that madness.
I'm not saying ICO's are scams, but do you think scamming should be legal?
I believe in freedom of association, I also believe that the market is driven by reputation, therefor bad actors (in this case scammers) cannot thrive (see how bad vendors get eliminated by the market on ebay or amazon without government help, just bad reputation).
But Amazon and Ebay already are regulated systems, with feedback, refunds etc. ICOs aren't.
Oh yes they can thrive .. for quite a while .. remember Jordan Belfort?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jordan_Belfort
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jordan_Belfort
If the scam is very well executed, it will thrives for a bit longer even with laws against scams, as your link shows. However, once publicly exposed, the scammer's bad reputation will ensure no one will trust doing business with him again in his field, much more so than any anti-scamming laws that punished him with those 22 months in jail.
> the scammer's bad reputation will ensure no one will trust doing business with him again in his field
That doesn't like a problem for people who can fill a ~20 million ICO in half an hour, do they need to work (=be trusted) ever again?
That doesn't like a problem for people who can fill a ~20 million ICO in half an hour, do they need to work (=be trusted) ever again?
They don't, but if it happens with a few ICOs people won't trust ICOs anymore and these kinds of scams won't repeat much.
Anyway, has there been any verified ICO scams yet? Seems to me like it's not much different from startups promising BS/bad ideas to gullible VCs who end up losing millions. In this case, ICOs are selling these ideas to the little guy through crowd funding which is different but the little guy usually invest a few bucks in these ICOs so if the ICO fails to delivers it's not as big a deal unless one invests his/her life's saving in said ICO but then that's a pretty risky idea one needs to take responsibility for.
Anyway, has there been any verified ICO scams yet? Seems to me like it's not much different from startups promising BS/bad ideas to gullible VCs who end up losing millions. In this case, ICOs are selling these ideas to the little guy through crowd funding which is different but the little guy usually invest a few bucks in these ICOs so if the ICO fails to delivers it's not as big a deal unless one invests his/her life's saving in said ICO but then that's a pretty risky idea one needs to take responsibility for.
I think people like you should try eating food produced by unregulated companies and see how you like it. Enjoy your sawdust bread.
I buy bread from a farmer's market some weekends. It's made by one guy in his home kitchen who isn't accredited or regulated in any way.
By your approximation I should be dead by now. The salient point is that it's my human right to associate with whomever I please.
By your approximation I should be dead by now. The salient point is that it's my human right to associate with whomever I please.
Your experience at the farmer's market is surely equivalent to what most people would experience in Walmart.
Many humans will do anything it takes to make a profit and not care about who they are screwing over. If you think that's okay that's fine, but then go to Somalia and see how a lawless country works in practice.
Food safety in particular was mandated by populae request. I cannot wrap my head around free market believers like you who apparently think that humans are omniscient beings who have access to all information about every product and every seller they encounter so they can make informed purchasing decisions. That's just bullshit. You are a religious cult at this point.
Many humans will do anything it takes to make a profit and not care about who they are screwing over. If you think that's okay that's fine, but then go to Somalia and see how a lawless country works in practice.
Food safety in particular was mandated by populae request. I cannot wrap my head around free market believers like you who apparently think that humans are omniscient beings who have access to all information about every product and every seller they encounter so they can make informed purchasing decisions. That's just bullshit. You are a religious cult at this point.
Any market given the space to develop becomes highly vetted. Somalia's during its civil war didn't work because there was no central authority providing security and preventing raiders from pillaging markets, so markets didn't have the opportunity to become highly developed.
There is no chance that supermarket shelves would be stocked with toxic/fraudulent food products in our world of secure private property rights, with or withouy food safety regulations. There is an elaborate chain of private interests involved in food production/distribution that would self-organize to prevent such an outcome. McDonalds uses higher standards for its beef than the USDA for example. Automobile manufacturers have higher safety standards than regulations require.
>>That's just bullshit. You are a religious cult at this point.
I recommend some introspection.
There is no chance that supermarket shelves would be stocked with toxic/fraudulent food products in our world of secure private property rights, with or withouy food safety regulations. There is an elaborate chain of private interests involved in food production/distribution that would self-organize to prevent such an outcome. McDonalds uses higher standards for its beef than the USDA for example. Automobile manufacturers have higher safety standards than regulations require.
>>That's just bullshit. You are a religious cult at this point.
I recommend some introspection.
I recommend that you realise your arguments for a totally free market are exactly as useful as the arguments for a state controlled economy. It doesn't work because people will always screw each other over. This is the reason communism is not viable, and it is the reason libertarianism is not viable either.
I hope you realise that todays "strict" food safety laws were born out of a world where people did exactly what you say they wouldn't. They cut bread with sawdust to make money. They skimped on hygiene. They advertised other meats than they used etc etc etc. Today these things have real consequences. You're saying we should just let people do that? I cannot fathom what drives you to that position.
"Oh, but people won't buy their products as soon as they have been ousted as being cheats" yeah well. People don't buy Nestle products even though they use child slavery and caused mass malnutrion of poor children? It's just so naive to think that this actually happens.
We can mostly agree what is good and bad, but as soon as you have to pay 20 cents extra for fairtrade bread that goes out the window. You know it.
>Somalia's during its civil war didn't work because there was no central authority providing security and preventing raiders from pillaging markets, so markets didn't have the opportunity to become highly developed.
So there was no central authority and therefore the system failed. Isn't a weaker central authority what you want? Governments generally want stability, and guess what. Regulating markets helps stability.
Anyway, this discussion is pointless if you cannot see that total free market idealism is as extreme as pure communism and equally flawed. The optimum is somewhere in the middle.
I hope you realise that todays "strict" food safety laws were born out of a world where people did exactly what you say they wouldn't. They cut bread with sawdust to make money. They skimped on hygiene. They advertised other meats than they used etc etc etc. Today these things have real consequences. You're saying we should just let people do that? I cannot fathom what drives you to that position.
"Oh, but people won't buy their products as soon as they have been ousted as being cheats" yeah well. People don't buy Nestle products even though they use child slavery and caused mass malnutrion of poor children? It's just so naive to think that this actually happens.
We can mostly agree what is good and bad, but as soon as you have to pay 20 cents extra for fairtrade bread that goes out the window. You know it.
>Somalia's during its civil war didn't work because there was no central authority providing security and preventing raiders from pillaging markets, so markets didn't have the opportunity to become highly developed.
So there was no central authority and therefore the system failed. Isn't a weaker central authority what you want? Governments generally want stability, and guess what. Regulating markets helps stability.
Anyway, this discussion is pointless if you cannot see that total free market idealism is as extreme as pure communism and equally flawed. The optimum is somewhere in the middle.
>>I recommend that you realise your arguments for a totally free market are exactly as useful as the arguments for a state controlled economy. It doesn't work because people will always screw each other over. This is the reason communism is not viable, and it is the reason libertarianism is not viable either.
I believe people will screw each other over no matter what system you use. In a regulated economy people will screw other people by lobbying for regulations that protect their industry from competition. In other words, centralized control via regulatory guardrails doesn't preclude exploitation: look at the opioid epidemic for example. It can in large part be traced back to doctors prescribing opioids as a result of pharmaceutical marketing. The industry is highly regulated and thus profitable for the pharmaceutical giants. The Drug War has been going on for a hundred years and drug abuse is worse now that it's ever been. I doubt that we would be any worse off in terms of drug abuse with a free market in drugs, and I'm sure there would be more competition and lower costs for drugs.
>>I hope you realise that todays "strict" food safety laws were born out of a world where people did exactly what you say they wouldn't. They cut bread with sawdust to make money. They skimped on hygiene. They advertised other meats than they used etc etc etc. Today these things have real consequences. You're saying we should just let people do that? I cannot fathom what drives you to that position.
People do that today as well. With a mandatory safety standard, you can probably raise quality in the short term, but there is a trade-off, in increasing costs and reducing innovation.
Regarding cost: it's not a given that reducing the incidence of food fraud is always worth the increase in food costs. I know it's not a intuitive idea, but sometimes the public welfare effect of increasing costs outweighs the public welfare effects of increasing quality. In a free market people will make a decision on what trade-off is best for them based on their own circumstance. Because it really does depend on the circumstances. Someone who values food safety more than low prices can always opt to buy a reputable label with a strong reputation for food safety. But for others, the lower cost of less reputable brands is more important for them than minimizing the risk of contracting foodborne illnesses or ingesting harmful additives.
With regard to innovation, regulation harms it because it replaces diversity with uniformity. Imagine a thousand food producers, each producing food of varying quality. With regulations, you get them all to use the same food safety procedures. This might mean that 70% of them raise their standards, but it also means the 10% creating innovative ways to maintain high quality standards at lower costs will stop exploring these avenues.
A modern day example would be how Uber found a more cost-effective way of assuring a high quality taxi service with its rating system than the regulatory approach of the medallion system that municipalities use. Taxi regulations, by imposing uniformity in procedures (the licensing process) on the taxi sector, caused the procedures used by taxi companies to stagnate and not evolve for decades. The quality difference between Uber and the regulated taxi services is night and day.
One other point I'd add is that the effect of reducing the rate of innovation is compounding. Over the long run, of 50-100 years, society will lose out immensely from trading recurring increases in innovation from a competitive free market for a one-time boost in quality from imposing a uniform standard for quality assurance.
The greatest force for improved quality and increased affordability is, in the long run, competition between entities free to innovate without the artificial constraint of mandates on their procedures.
Another reason to oppose regulations against the free market is that regulations are subject to being shaped by special interests, who may deliberately push for them to be onerous to stamp out smaller competitors. Many small farmers blame food production regulations for the demise of their sector and the growing dominance of industrial farming.
>>So there was no central authority and therefore the system failed. Isn't a weaker central authority what you want?
Not categorically. I want a strong authority maintaining security and the right to freely contract, but I want that authority to not use its power to infringe upon those same contracting rights.
>Anyway, this discussion is pointless if you cannot see that total free market idealism is as extreme as pure communism and equally flawed. The optimum is somewhere in the middle.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation
I believe people will screw each other over no matter what system you use. In a regulated economy people will screw other people by lobbying for regulations that protect their industry from competition. In other words, centralized control via regulatory guardrails doesn't preclude exploitation: look at the opioid epidemic for example. It can in large part be traced back to doctors prescribing opioids as a result of pharmaceutical marketing. The industry is highly regulated and thus profitable for the pharmaceutical giants. The Drug War has been going on for a hundred years and drug abuse is worse now that it's ever been. I doubt that we would be any worse off in terms of drug abuse with a free market in drugs, and I'm sure there would be more competition and lower costs for drugs.
>>I hope you realise that todays "strict" food safety laws were born out of a world where people did exactly what you say they wouldn't. They cut bread with sawdust to make money. They skimped on hygiene. They advertised other meats than they used etc etc etc. Today these things have real consequences. You're saying we should just let people do that? I cannot fathom what drives you to that position.
People do that today as well. With a mandatory safety standard, you can probably raise quality in the short term, but there is a trade-off, in increasing costs and reducing innovation.
Regarding cost: it's not a given that reducing the incidence of food fraud is always worth the increase in food costs. I know it's not a intuitive idea, but sometimes the public welfare effect of increasing costs outweighs the public welfare effects of increasing quality. In a free market people will make a decision on what trade-off is best for them based on their own circumstance. Because it really does depend on the circumstances. Someone who values food safety more than low prices can always opt to buy a reputable label with a strong reputation for food safety. But for others, the lower cost of less reputable brands is more important for them than minimizing the risk of contracting foodborne illnesses or ingesting harmful additives.
With regard to innovation, regulation harms it because it replaces diversity with uniformity. Imagine a thousand food producers, each producing food of varying quality. With regulations, you get them all to use the same food safety procedures. This might mean that 70% of them raise their standards, but it also means the 10% creating innovative ways to maintain high quality standards at lower costs will stop exploring these avenues.
A modern day example would be how Uber found a more cost-effective way of assuring a high quality taxi service with its rating system than the regulatory approach of the medallion system that municipalities use. Taxi regulations, by imposing uniformity in procedures (the licensing process) on the taxi sector, caused the procedures used by taxi companies to stagnate and not evolve for decades. The quality difference between Uber and the regulated taxi services is night and day.
One other point I'd add is that the effect of reducing the rate of innovation is compounding. Over the long run, of 50-100 years, society will lose out immensely from trading recurring increases in innovation from a competitive free market for a one-time boost in quality from imposing a uniform standard for quality assurance.
The greatest force for improved quality and increased affordability is, in the long run, competition between entities free to innovate without the artificial constraint of mandates on their procedures.
Another reason to oppose regulations against the free market is that regulations are subject to being shaped by special interests, who may deliberately push for them to be onerous to stamp out smaller competitors. Many small farmers blame food production regulations for the demise of their sector and the growing dominance of industrial farming.
>>So there was no central authority and therefore the system failed. Isn't a weaker central authority what you want?
Not categorically. I want a strong authority maintaining security and the right to freely contract, but I want that authority to not use its power to infringe upon those same contracting rights.
>Anyway, this discussion is pointless if you cannot see that total free market idealism is as extreme as pure communism and equally flawed. The optimum is somewhere in the middle.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation
I believe people will screw each other over no matter what system you use. In a regulated economy people will screw other people by lobbying for regulations that protect their industry from competition.
Just like people will always abuse the system. People hae learned to do this, especially in the US. Your solution is simply to make it easier for companies to screw people. Why don't people boycott companies TODAY when they do this? If they did, then I might support your argument. The fact is that there is no evidence for people doing this.
>People do that today as well. With a mandatory safety standard, you can probably raise quality in the short term, but there is a trade-off, in increasing costs and reducing innovation.
If they do they are thrown in jail. Now usually the people really responsible are not because of a failing legal system. That problem is not solved by just letting them do it and get away scot free.
Regardings costs. Peopme are so amazingly bad at making decisions as a group. It is mathematically provable that if everyone acts in their own best interest everyone can easily be worse off as a result. This assumes everyone is a rational actor, and we know that people are not even close to that which makes it even worse.
>The greatest force for improved quality and increased affordability is, in the long run, competition between entities free to innovate without the artificial constraint of mandates on their procedures.
>A great many industries were kickstarted by government subsidy. Another reason to oppose regulations against the free market is that regulations are subject to being shaped by special interests, who may deliberately push for them to be onerous to stamp out smaller competitors. Many small farmers blame food production regulations for the demise of their sector and the growing dominance of industrial farming.
This is indeed a problem, but your solution is essentially to just let companies do what they would otherwise be have to lobby for. Most lobbying cases are for laxed regulation or to allow companies to get away with monopolistic practices.
>Not categorically. I want a strong authority maintaining security and the right to freely contract, but I want that authority to not use its power to infringe upon those same contracting rights
We can argue the word "freely" then. I don't believe people freely enter contractual relationships when one side has a clear power advantage and actively tries to manipulate you.
And by the way, it's not a fallacy to appeal to moderation when overdosing kills you.
Since you believe that everyone should make their own decisons and we should just live with that. Perhaps you should consider that the system we have to day was born out of people making their decison to not have 100% libertarianism because they were smart enough. By your logic this would be all the reason you would ever need.
At some point you just have to realise that the requirements necessary for the system you want to outperform what we have are opposite to how people actually behave in real life. I hope you are young, then it is fine to be a bit idealistic. We all realise why things don't work sooner or later.
Just like people will always abuse the system. People hae learned to do this, especially in the US. Your solution is simply to make it easier for companies to screw people. Why don't people boycott companies TODAY when they do this? If they did, then I might support your argument. The fact is that there is no evidence for people doing this.
>People do that today as well. With a mandatory safety standard, you can probably raise quality in the short term, but there is a trade-off, in increasing costs and reducing innovation.
If they do they are thrown in jail. Now usually the people really responsible are not because of a failing legal system. That problem is not solved by just letting them do it and get away scot free.
Regardings costs. Peopme are so amazingly bad at making decisions as a group. It is mathematically provable that if everyone acts in their own best interest everyone can easily be worse off as a result. This assumes everyone is a rational actor, and we know that people are not even close to that which makes it even worse.
>The greatest force for improved quality and increased affordability is, in the long run, competition between entities free to innovate without the artificial constraint of mandates on their procedures.
>A great many industries were kickstarted by government subsidy. Another reason to oppose regulations against the free market is that regulations are subject to being shaped by special interests, who may deliberately push for them to be onerous to stamp out smaller competitors. Many small farmers blame food production regulations for the demise of their sector and the growing dominance of industrial farming.
This is indeed a problem, but your solution is essentially to just let companies do what they would otherwise be have to lobby for. Most lobbying cases are for laxed regulation or to allow companies to get away with monopolistic practices.
>Not categorically. I want a strong authority maintaining security and the right to freely contract, but I want that authority to not use its power to infringe upon those same contracting rights
We can argue the word "freely" then. I don't believe people freely enter contractual relationships when one side has a clear power advantage and actively tries to manipulate you.
And by the way, it's not a fallacy to appeal to moderation when overdosing kills you.
Since you believe that everyone should make their own decisons and we should just live with that. Perhaps you should consider that the system we have to day was born out of people making their decison to not have 100% libertarianism because they were smart enough. By your logic this would be all the reason you would ever need.
At some point you just have to realise that the requirements necessary for the system you want to outperform what we have are opposite to how people actually behave in real life. I hope you are young, then it is fine to be a bit idealistic. We all realise why things don't work sooner or later.
>>Your solution is simply to make it easier for companies to screw people. Why don't people boycott companies TODAY when they do this?
In the previous comment I explained why I don't think this will make it any easier, on the balance, for companies to screw people over. Please go over my previous comment again as I explain what I see as the trade-offs of more regulations, and how they are slanted toward people being screwed over more.
>If they do they are thrown in jail.
If they're caught. And that applies to a world without food regulations as well. Just because there's no regulatory requirement to have the food certified by the USDA doesn't mean it becomes legal to sell goop marketed as milk. That's still fraud, because it's a violation of basic contracting law:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implied-in-fact_contract
>>Regardings costs. Peopme are so amazingly bad at making decisions as a group.
I disagree completely. I think the market is a marvellous way to bring our collective intelligence to bear to guide product development, and is resulting in consumer food purchases becoming healthier and consumer options becoming more diverse over time. Consumer choice is the reason organic foods have seen their market share grow so much over the decades. It's the reason product diversity in supermarkets has grown so much. People are willing to pay for quality, and as society becomes more prosperous, we'll see more value-added food of higher quality.
>>>A great many industries were kickstarted by government subsidy.
Government subsidies can indeed kickstart an industry by bringing about advances in basic science and by incubating new industries, but that's not relevant to the debate of whether we should be restricting market choices with regulations, and whether industries will evolve faster with or without such regulations.
>>This is indeed a problem, but your solution is essentially to just let companies do what they would otherwise be have to lobby for. Most lobbying cases are for laxed regulation or to allow companies to get away with monopolistic practices.
My solution is to let the companies be regulated by consumer choice. Seems like the least corruptible and best incentivized system of development for an industry.
As for monopolistic practices, I endorse public funding of public options in monopolistic sectors, instead of regulations that violate the right of private market participants to act freely.
>We can argue the word "freely" then. I don't believe people freely enter contractual relationships when one side has a clear power advantage and actively tries to manipulate you.
A court of law, made up of a jury of our peers, should be determining what contract was entered into freely, not a sweeping snap judgement about an entire class of contracts without looking at the specific details of each case.
I strongly disagree with your notion that any agreement between parties of unequal wealth levels is nonconsensual, and I believe any court of law would disagree with you as well, as being inconsistent with established and legal understandings of consent.
I think one should take ideology out of these considerations and defer to the courts on issues of contract law. That's essentially what I'm endorsing by promoting the free market.
>>Perhaps you should consider that the system we have to day was born out of people making their decison to not have 100% libertarianism because they were smart enough. By your logic this would be all the reason you would ever need.
I don't believe people are smart when it comes to macro issues like economics, and thus I believe they collectively impose incredibly destructive economic policies like socialism, anti-free-market regulations, etc. through the political process, which lets the mob forcefully impose its will on everyone.
The economy is too complex for any one person to understand, so what people often do is oversimplify it with ideological notions about evil corporations, and how regulations written by some legislature can allegedly make them act in the public interest, which in reality is nonsense, and ignores how agents in the economy actually operate, and what incentives actually drive positive and economically productive behaviour.
I believe the complexity of the economy can only be addressed in a decentralized fashion, through the spontaneous emergence of market supply chains and prices, that represent the collaborative coordination of economic resources by a diverse set of parties each acting based on localized information, and who through their market actions, contribute that localized knowledge to public information resources about the larger economic picture.
It's important to try to help the average person understand that the market does work in the long run for most areas of the economy, and not to buy into the siren call of centralized and simplistic government solutions.
In the previous comment I explained why I don't think this will make it any easier, on the balance, for companies to screw people over. Please go over my previous comment again as I explain what I see as the trade-offs of more regulations, and how they are slanted toward people being screwed over more.
>If they do they are thrown in jail.
If they're caught. And that applies to a world without food regulations as well. Just because there's no regulatory requirement to have the food certified by the USDA doesn't mean it becomes legal to sell goop marketed as milk. That's still fraud, because it's a violation of basic contracting law:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implied-in-fact_contract
>>Regardings costs. Peopme are so amazingly bad at making decisions as a group.
I disagree completely. I think the market is a marvellous way to bring our collective intelligence to bear to guide product development, and is resulting in consumer food purchases becoming healthier and consumer options becoming more diverse over time. Consumer choice is the reason organic foods have seen their market share grow so much over the decades. It's the reason product diversity in supermarkets has grown so much. People are willing to pay for quality, and as society becomes more prosperous, we'll see more value-added food of higher quality.
>>>A great many industries were kickstarted by government subsidy.
Government subsidies can indeed kickstart an industry by bringing about advances in basic science and by incubating new industries, but that's not relevant to the debate of whether we should be restricting market choices with regulations, and whether industries will evolve faster with or without such regulations.
>>This is indeed a problem, but your solution is essentially to just let companies do what they would otherwise be have to lobby for. Most lobbying cases are for laxed regulation or to allow companies to get away with monopolistic practices.
My solution is to let the companies be regulated by consumer choice. Seems like the least corruptible and best incentivized system of development for an industry.
As for monopolistic practices, I endorse public funding of public options in monopolistic sectors, instead of regulations that violate the right of private market participants to act freely.
>We can argue the word "freely" then. I don't believe people freely enter contractual relationships when one side has a clear power advantage and actively tries to manipulate you.
A court of law, made up of a jury of our peers, should be determining what contract was entered into freely, not a sweeping snap judgement about an entire class of contracts without looking at the specific details of each case.
I strongly disagree with your notion that any agreement between parties of unequal wealth levels is nonconsensual, and I believe any court of law would disagree with you as well, as being inconsistent with established and legal understandings of consent.
I think one should take ideology out of these considerations and defer to the courts on issues of contract law. That's essentially what I'm endorsing by promoting the free market.
>>Perhaps you should consider that the system we have to day was born out of people making their decison to not have 100% libertarianism because they were smart enough. By your logic this would be all the reason you would ever need.
I don't believe people are smart when it comes to macro issues like economics, and thus I believe they collectively impose incredibly destructive economic policies like socialism, anti-free-market regulations, etc. through the political process, which lets the mob forcefully impose its will on everyone.
The economy is too complex for any one person to understand, so what people often do is oversimplify it with ideological notions about evil corporations, and how regulations written by some legislature can allegedly make them act in the public interest, which in reality is nonsense, and ignores how agents in the economy actually operate, and what incentives actually drive positive and economically productive behaviour.
I believe the complexity of the economy can only be addressed in a decentralized fashion, through the spontaneous emergence of market supply chains and prices, that represent the collaborative coordination of economic resources by a diverse set of parties each acting based on localized information, and who through their market actions, contribute that localized knowledge to public information resources about the larger economic picture.
It's important to try to help the average person understand that the market does work in the long run for most areas of the economy, and not to buy into the siren call of centralized and simplistic government solutions.
There's all sorts of things that consenting adults aren't allowed to do, even if 'free and willing'.
I know, and I wish there were more things consenting adults would not be allowed to do, even free and willing. In an ideal world, adults should not be allowed to do anything without asking permission from government first. Hopefully we'll get there someday.
Heh. This guy here thinks people are rational actors. Even in groups.
The right to act on our own irrationalities and commit our own mistakes is one of our most important right (the right to eat what you want, date who you want etc, these things used be illegal not so long ago to make sure you didn't act irrational, turns out letting people make their own choice even when irrational trumps the lack of freedom to do so because what seems irrational may actually not be and vice versa, as long as it's consensual I say live and let live).
This only works in the world where a person's choices only effect them. That's not the case. The case is it effects your family and a load of people losing their money causes the economy the crash.
As an adult you should be allowed to take the benefit of the doubt.
I read a comment only yesterday: "I don't know any half decent Ethereum developers who are not currently millionaires". I felt poor and excluded.
Then I remembered how it felt in 2000 where all you needed was a website for pet food and folks would throw money at you.
Then I remembered how it felt in 2000 where all you needed was a website for pet food and folks would throw money at you.
I had a discussion about crypto currencies with a pretty high level EU diplomat from the trade commission. His point was simple, as soon as they will consider the crypto currencies as a medium to escape taxes and general "rules" (whatever it means) they will simply ban or regulate them to put them back into the control of a central authority.
Seriously, I had this conversation with someone on Twitter and it was like they had no clue this was an option.
A state power isn't going to let some random currency come in and compete with their sovereign currency rules.
A state power isn't going to let some random currency come in and compete with their sovereign currency rules.
And they will stop people from making bitcoin transactions how, exactly?
It's a bit silly to come in and dismissively say "the state will regulate it anyway" when the whole point of the technology is that it technologically prevents central actors (like a state) from interfering.
It's a bit like saying "nah, the MPAA and RIAA will shut down filesharing." Nope. They shut down Napster (which was centralized), but BitTorrent works just fine thank you very much and the media industry has fundamentally changed as a result.
It's a bit silly to come in and dismissively say "the state will regulate it anyway" when the whole point of the technology is that it technologically prevents central actors (like a state) from interfering.
It's a bit like saying "nah, the MPAA and RIAA will shut down filesharing." Nope. They shut down Napster (which was centralized), but BitTorrent works just fine thank you very much and the media industry has fundamentally changed as a result.
And they will stop people from making bitcoin transactions how, exactly?
By making convertibility to Yuan illegal. This is trivially easy to do and enforce, making the entire Bitcoin marketplace a black market for any transactions on the mainland. So your life would get real hard real quick the moment you try to turn Bitcoin into Yuan. Oh, that's ok you'll just do ALL your transactions with bitcoin. Ok so any shop owner that makes it even slightly known that they take bitcoin will be arrested. Too easy.
Forget big C communist ideology at the state level, you mess with provinces and their ability to collect money and you'll go down hard fast.
By making convertibility to Yuan illegal. This is trivially easy to do and enforce, making the entire Bitcoin marketplace a black market for any transactions on the mainland. So your life would get real hard real quick the moment you try to turn Bitcoin into Yuan. Oh, that's ok you'll just do ALL your transactions with bitcoin. Ok so any shop owner that makes it even slightly known that they take bitcoin will be arrested. Too easy.
Forget big C communist ideology at the state level, you mess with provinces and their ability to collect money and you'll go down hard fast.
The same way they stop you from falsifying your taxes records now. Is this a trick question?
No it's not a trick question. Tax fraud investigation relies on bank cooperation. Bitcoin doesn't cooperate with anybody. They can make toothless voluntary requests though.
More likely society evolves in the face of bitcoin to integrate or at least mitigate it rather than fight it, just like music delivery is chiefly now by streaming subscription services rather than album sales.
More likely society evolves in the face of bitcoin to integrate or at least mitigate it rather than fight it, just like music delivery is chiefly now by streaming subscription services rather than album sales.
Bitcoin doesn't cooperate with anybody.
Go try and turn your Bitcoin into cash and then tell me how true this statement is.
Go try and turn your Bitcoin into cash and then tell me how true this statement is.
The purpose of bitcoin is to be used. Once it has seen enough adoption, you don't turn it into cash. It is cash.
Also I do local bitcoin transactions just fine thank you very much.
Also I do local bitcoin transactions just fine thank you very much.
Once it has seen enough adoption, you don't turn it into cash.
Therein lies the rub and the crux of my point. A government WONT LET IT see enough adoption that you can subvert the sovereign monetary system.
I think you underestimate how big of a deal it would be to move 100% of commerce off of the USD. Nations go to war for less.
Therein lies the rub and the crux of my point. A government WONT LET IT see enough adoption that you can subvert the sovereign monetary system.
I think you underestimate how big of a deal it would be to move 100% of commerce off of the USD. Nations go to war for less.
Actually I think such bold decisions can only be made by a government that is not encumbered with lobbies and business interests.
Yes because business interest lobbyists are so pro-ICO...
Venture Capitalists are all on board with a technology that forces them to compete with the masses during seed rounds...
and existing companies are all about upstart competitors having an easier way to get capital early on...
\s
Venture Capitalists are all on board with a technology that forces them to compete with the masses during seed rounds...
and existing companies are all about upstart competitors having an easier way to get capital early on...
\s
That's just naive and wishful thinking. The brand of capitalism in China is more reckless than that in the US and the business interests are really interwined with the government policies. It's just that the government still has a bit more of a final say but that doesn't mean the rich politicians and businessmen aren't in the same boat.
what makes you think china's institutions aren't?
Oppressive regimes are usually effective at making decisions that hurt many individuals (even unfairly) for the (supposed?) benefit of the collective.
Nah that kind of view is just naive. First I don't think a simple moniker of "oppressive regime" makes any sense except for political propaganda purposes. If you say China is an oppressive regime so is the US, and the US might be even more of a state basically based on slavery really.
Second, the truth is the capitalism in China is even wilder and more libertarian in a sense than that in the US. It's just that the central authority still acts quickly enough. The rich people are still basically in the same bunch, whether it's the officials or the businessmen, and the gap between the rich and poor is widening ridiculously fast.
Second, the truth is the capitalism in China is even wilder and more libertarian in a sense than that in the US. It's just that the central authority still acts quickly enough. The rich people are still basically in the same bunch, whether it's the officials or the businessmen, and the gap between the rich and poor is widening ridiculously fast.
that's very optimistic if not naive. the ones who usually benefit are the oppressors, the rest are left to their own devices if they aren't causing problems - real or perceived - or even are deemed to cause problems in the future even if they do nothing wrong right now. the collective benefits only in utopia circumstances, ie. never.
Well this is really the same for all kinds of libertarian/capitalist regimes. Branding China as an "oppressive regime" is really just political propaganda speech. If you say China is an oppressive regime so is US, and the US might be even more of a slave state really.
China nowadays has even more reckless capitalism than that in the US, and the gap between the rich and the poor is expanding incredibly fast.
China nowadays has even more reckless capitalism than that in the US, and the gap between the rich and the poor is expanding incredibly fast.
Exactly, I agree
It's not sensible at all. It's none of anyone's business what two consenting adults do with their money. The idea of a third party dictating the range of acceptable contractual engagements is absolutely terrible and has profound negative unintended consequences, with the worst of them being licensing barriers to create rent-seeking opportunities (only one new bank created in the UK over the last 100 years).
"only one new bank created in the UK over the last 100 years"?
You are quite mistaken here, from the top of my head, Tesco (late 90s) and Monzo (very recent) are 2 examples, and I'm not even into finance.
You are quite mistaken here, from the top of my head, Tesco (late 90s) and Monzo (very recent) are 2 examples, and I'm not even into finance.
I think what CryptoPunk refers to is that (allegedly) Metro is the only "high street", i.e. with many physical branches, bank created in the UK in the last 100+ years.
Given we're in a thread talking about ICOs and tech startups, I would side with you and say this is an irrelevant classification and the claim is wrong. :-P
Still interesting though, but given the veritable plethora of recently founded remote-only banks of various innovativenesses, I wouldn't say excessive regulation is to blame, if we think this is a Bad Thing.
Given we're in a thread talking about ICOs and tech startups, I would side with you and say this is an irrelevant classification and the claim is wrong. :-P
Still interesting though, but given the veritable plethora of recently founded remote-only banks of various innovativenesses, I wouldn't say excessive regulation is to blame, if we think this is a Bad Thing.
Well, having physical branches it really not that important these days. If they give you a way to do usual tasks (change address etc) online or via phone there can be massive savings and increases in efficiency by getting rid of all physical branches.
All that real estate that is now occupied by bank branches can be give to some other businesses that actually need physical space (fashion/clothes, sports, restaurant, gyms etc) to use it more efficiently.
The only reason I had to go to a physical branch this year was to change my address and that is only because my old bank where my main account is doesn't have a way to do this online (seriously I don't understand why is it so difficult to make this a feature of online banking...).
I am using Monzo as my secondary bank and once they give me current account later this year, if it works smoothly and there are no issues I might get rid of my old bank account.
All that real estate that is now occupied by bank branches can be give to some other businesses that actually need physical space (fashion/clothes, sports, restaurant, gyms etc) to use it more efficiently.
The only reason I had to go to a physical branch this year was to change my address and that is only because my old bank where my main account is doesn't have a way to do this online (seriously I don't understand why is it so difficult to make this a feature of online banking...).
I am using Monzo as my secondary bank and once they give me current account later this year, if it works smoothly and there are no issues I might get rid of my old bank account.
There are a couple of digital banks like Monzo. Atom, Tandem, Starling and more (there's another one for digital nomads, I don't remember their name).
Then there are also other banks like Tesco/Sainsbury's which are definitely not 100 years old. More like started in 90s (but perhaps these reused some old banking licenses from other banks so don't count as "new").
Especially lately there has been a boom in fintech and lots of new challenger banks are appearing and getting banking licenses so that claim is definitely not true today, perhaps it was true a decade or two ago.
Then there are also other banks like Tesco/Sainsbury's which are definitely not 100 years old. More like started in 90s (but perhaps these reused some old banking licenses from other banks so don't count as "new").
Especially lately there has been a boom in fintech and lots of new challenger banks are appearing and getting banking licenses so that claim is definitely not true today, perhaps it was true a decade or two ago.
I think Tesco, Sainsbury's etc are just resellers of banking services. Actual banking licenses are the thing there have been none of for 100 years iirc, I don't think GP comment just pulled that assertion out of thin air.
Monzo and Starling have secured full banking licenses for sure. Though recently, I think it was only this year. Tandem I think lost their license because of problems with funding.
So that claim might have been true few years ago before fintech boom started. Lots of new digital banks already got or are in process of getting banking license.
Banking industry in U.K. is getting shaken up currently, lots of fintech challengers.
So that claim might have been true few years ago before fintech boom started. Lots of new digital banks already got or are in process of getting banking license.
Banking industry in U.K. is getting shaken up currently, lots of fintech challengers.
I'm basing it on this:
http://www.computerweekly.com/news/450400615/Digital-only-At...
>The bank was the brainchild of Anthony Thomson, who set up Metro Bank in 2009, which was the first new banking organisation to open in the UK since the end of the 19th century.
>In April 2016, Atom launched its banking app after regulators lifted a restriction on its authorisation.
http://www.computerweekly.com/news/450400615/Digital-only-At...
>The bank was the brainchild of Anthony Thomson, who set up Metro Bank in 2009, which was the first new banking organisation to open in the UK since the end of the 19th century.
>In April 2016, Atom launched its banking app after regulators lifted a restriction on its authorisation.
The BoE lists all registered banks and building societies at: http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/pra/Pages/authorisations/bank... - FWIW, it includes Tesco Bank there. Perhaps Computer Weekly is not the best source of this information?
Anyway, there's well over a hundred banks listed, and around forty building societies, so there's hardly a lack of competition.
Anyway, there's well over a hundred banks listed, and around forty building societies, so there's hardly a lack of competition.
The original statement was correct as of 2009.
When the coalition came in, one of Osborne's first acts was to push the banking regulators to issue more banking licenses, due to that 100 year+ stagnation. Since the coalition, there have been a variety of new licenses issued, so the problem is now resolved.
When the coalition came in, one of Osborne's first acts was to push the banking regulators to issue more banking licenses, due to that 100 year+ stagnation. Since the coalition, there have been a variety of new licenses issued, so the problem is now resolved.
Oops, my mistake, sorry!
It's not just ComputerWeekly. 'First new banking license issued in the UK since the 19th century' gets a lot of hits on Google. I'm pretty sure it would have been corrected if it were incorrect.
"Two consenting adults". That is a misrepresentation of reality. You could say the same about Pyramid schemes. No one forced others to buy into it.
The point is ICOs are akin to scams. And there should be a regulations around it.
The point is ICOs are akin to scams. And there should be a regulations around it.
You can't make a blanket characterisation of token sales like that. They're not categorically scams.
Which is a lot people in this thread want regulation as opposed to a flat out ban.
We have a regulation against fraud already. New proposed regulations are about banning unvetted token sales, to preempt possible scams, which is limiting people's contracting rights when there is no evidence of a crime - only a possibility of a scam based on a generalisation.
Problem: stock booms result in massive fraud and a great deal of economic damage.
Solution: regulate the stock market.
Problem: cannot sell things we want to sell.
Solution: Derivatives.
Problem: CDOs cause massive economic damage.
Solution: don't do that.
Problem: cannot sell what we want to.
Solution: Etherium.
...
Solution: regulate the stock market.
Problem: cannot sell things we want to sell.
Solution: Derivatives.
Problem: CDOs cause massive economic damage.
Solution: don't do that.
Problem: cannot sell what we want to.
Solution: Etherium.
...
>Problem: stock booms result in massive fraud and a great deal of economic damage.
>Solution: regulate the stock market.
If people want to trade the price of a digital token into bubble territory, that's really their business. No one else is forced to buy up that token. Which governing authority will know it's a bubble anyway? It's not like it's possible to know if something is overvalued. If it were, one could reliably short every bubble and make a profit, and in fact do so so much and at such scale that their market shorting prevents bubbles from ever forming (since a short adds pressure on the sell-side).
>Solution: regulate the stock market.
If people want to trade the price of a digital token into bubble territory, that's really their business. No one else is forced to buy up that token. Which governing authority will know it's a bubble anyway? It's not like it's possible to know if something is overvalued. If it were, one could reliably short every bubble and make a profit, and in fact do so so much and at such scale that their market shorting prevents bubbles from ever forming (since a short adds pressure on the sell-side).
"ICOs need regulation, sure, but banning ICOs altogether is a huge gift to Silicon Valley and its resident financiers." -Naval Ravikant
This will probably slow down the ICOs. Smuggling money out of China is one of the main functions of crypto currencies these days.
Edit: Bloomberg just reported Bitcoin has dropped 11% on the news, so far.
meanwhile in Estonia... they are considering issuing their very own ICO https://thenextweb.com/eu/2017/08/23/estonia-could-be-the-fi...
[deleted]
Estonia's gov is famous for adapting new things. I still remember their initiative on e-visa. Actually China is trying to do that too. But crypto coins are made to decentralize things, I wonder how these gov-lead coins will play any parts.
The PRC leadership could "own" a cryptocurrency by securing a majority of nodes in the graph under their control, either physically or by mandating the use of their software, and disallowing the exchange of user-forks off their own coin-base.
While users would always be able to use their own forks, the gov would only allow taxes and retail trade to happen with their branch, thus de-legitimizing user forks and reducing their utility (and hence value).
Also given that most cryptocurrencies are only pseudonymous, means they could "follow the money" and quite easily charge someone for handling a disallowed cryptocurrency. This is why I feel Monero is undervalued compared to BTC - as Monero has greater utility for Bitcoin's original mainstream activity: online black-market purchasing.
While users would always be able to use their own forks, the gov would only allow taxes and retail trade to happen with their branch, thus de-legitimizing user forks and reducing their utility (and hence value).
Also given that most cryptocurrencies are only pseudonymous, means they could "follow the money" and quite easily charge someone for handling a disallowed cryptocurrency. This is why I feel Monero is undervalued compared to BTC - as Monero has greater utility for Bitcoin's original mainstream activity: online black-market purchasing.
Privacy doesn't necessarily mean black market. Financial companies couldn't effectively compete were their IP completely public to the competition.
> e-visa
You got a link to that how? How does that work with Schengen?
You got a link to that how? How does that work with Schengen?
Is not a e-visa...it called e-residency and simply is an ID card for use all the estonian services(like: open a company, pay taxes, open a bank account etc...)
It NOT GIVE a work permit in EU and of course not give a permission to travel in schengeng.
It's simply an ID card. The main difference is that: - Normally in other EU countries for have an ID card for services, you must live there, while with e-residency you can do have and do all the stuff remotely. - It's pretty useless, you can google it and see how had a lot of hype, but in real case uses, it's useless (example: yes you can open a company remotely, but if you don't live in estonia, is a mess with taxes...and having an e-residency, doesn't give you a valid visa for live+work there...so often you can't move to estonia to work, even if you have a company opened in estonia)
It NOT GIVE a work permit in EU and of course not give a permission to travel in schengeng.
It's simply an ID card. The main difference is that: - Normally in other EU countries for have an ID card for services, you must live there, while with e-residency you can do have and do all the stuff remotely. - It's pretty useless, you can google it and see how had a lot of hype, but in real case uses, it's useless (example: yes you can open a company remotely, but if you don't live in estonia, is a mess with taxes...and having an e-residency, doesn't give you a valid visa for live+work there...so often you can't move to estonia to work, even if you have a company opened in estonia)
>It's pretty useless, you can google it and see how had a lot of hype, but in real case uses, it's useless (example: yes you can open a company remotely, but if you don't live in estonia, is a mess with taxes...
Pheew, I thought I was the only one with this opinion, given the hype there is about this thing all over the net.
To me the whole stuff seems a lot like the plans of the gnomes in South Park (but in five steps):
1) get an e-residency (please read as "pay us some little money")
2) establish an Estonia company (please read as "pay us some more money")
3) open a bank account in this or that bank (please read as "give our friends a little more money")
4) ?
5) Profit.
The only practical use I can see is to create a new sort of Double Irish:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Irish_arrangement
but aimed to the single/poor instead of large corporations, but it has to be seen how the EU will take the idea ...
Pheew, I thought I was the only one with this opinion, given the hype there is about this thing all over the net.
To me the whole stuff seems a lot like the plans of the gnomes in South Park (but in five steps):
1) get an e-residency (please read as "pay us some little money")
2) establish an Estonia company (please read as "pay us some more money")
3) open a bank account in this or that bank (please read as "give our friends a little more money")
4) ?
5) Profit.
The only practical use I can see is to create a new sort of Double Irish:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Irish_arrangement
but aimed to the single/poor instead of large corporations, but it has to be seen how the EU will take the idea ...
You definitely aren't the only one with that opinion. If you've visited the card's homepage or tried to register for one, you'll have realized it confers almost no privileges.
Yep, and - just to get back on topic - they (the good Estonian people) are seemingly (maybe) plainning a government backed ICO:
https://medium.com/e-residency-blog/estonia-could-offer-estc...
Previous (few) comments on HN:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15071682
https://medium.com/e-residency-blog/estonia-could-offer-estc...
Previous (few) comments on HN:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15071682
I have an Estonian e-Residency. It does not allow you to reside in or enter the country. Even opening a bank account is non-trivial (as far as I've read, I tried it but gave up after a couple of hours), which makes me question the value of the e-Residency.
About time. 'the big crash of 2017'.
Some stability and sanity will return to this space.
Wishful thinking. This will probably not, in the short term, add sanity. It will, however, provide a buying opportunity for a week/month perhaps.
China will make some announcement in the future that softens or reverses this one, and we'll see a spike in crypto prices.
Hopefully there will be some sane regulation (or at least guidance) on ICOs to make it more difficult for scammy types to use ICOs as tools to bilk unsaavy "investors" (which includes most humans).
China will make some announcement in the future that softens or reverses this one, and we'll see a spike in crypto prices.
Hopefully there will be some sane regulation (or at least guidance) on ICOs to make it more difficult for scammy types to use ICOs as tools to bilk unsaavy "investors" (which includes most humans).
The dip in July was bigger. Percentage-wise and in absolute numbers.
And if you think "stability and sanity will return" to a still mostly unregulated market, you are pretty naive.
I'd even say for stability and sanity to return, they had to be there at some point in the first place which they didn't. :-)
And if you think "stability and sanity will return" to a still mostly unregulated market, you are pretty naive.
I'd even say for stability and sanity to return, they had to be there at some point in the first place which they didn't. :-)
Shaking my magic eightball: "DON'T COUNT ON IT"
It's an necessary move to take, given there are just so many scams under the cover of ICO. So few innovations, so many ponzi schemes.
Other countries must follow. If you see what kind of ICO scams are running out there, you can't look away any longer.
A lot of folks will lose their investment/money.
https://twitter.com/search?q=peak%20ico&src=typd
A lot of folks will lose their investment/money.
https://twitter.com/search?q=peak%20ico&src=typd
Wow, is this satire? The amount of buzzwords on that Twitter account [1] is staggering.
[1] https://twitter.com/LydianCoinLtd
[1] https://twitter.com/LydianCoinLtd
I agree. Finally I hope this breaks the ice and west steps in to regulate this ICO scam casino.
I think it is safe to say that this is because it is something the party can't control (in the somewhat more overt sense rather than the regulatory sense).
It probably has a lot more to do with the country regulating its own fiat currency, foreign change and savings quite aggressively. That made any previously unregulated (because new) alternative the _de facto_ change mechanism.
This is one of the things about bitcoin nobody has ever explained to me adequately. Governments use monetary policy & other economic tools to regulate the economy. Assuming we're all Keynsians here, this is a pretty important feature that govts will not give up, so how is Bitcoin ever supposed to supplant fiat currency?
I think many of the Bitcoin fans[1] are also in favor of the gold standard. They don't want the government to be able to "print money".
Actually I just noticed that the Wikipedia page on the gold standard has a section about bitcoin: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_standard#Gold_standard_an...
[1] At those who bother to think about the long term economic consequences of Bitcoin instead of just trying to Get Rich Quick.
Actually I just noticed that the Wikipedia page on the gold standard has a section about bitcoin: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_standard#Gold_standard_an...
[1] At those who bother to think about the long term economic consequences of Bitcoin instead of just trying to Get Rich Quick.
I'd disagree. What Bitcoin fans want is "digital gold", not the gold standard.
The gold standard is a system where paper currency is backed by a guarantee that it is redeemable for a given amount of gold. Of course the govt can rescind this promise at any time.
What Bitcoin fans want is something more akin to gold coins, where the value of the currency is independent of any state.
The gold standard is a system where paper currency is backed by a guarantee that it is redeemable for a given amount of gold. Of course the govt can rescind this promise at any time.
What Bitcoin fans want is something more akin to gold coins, where the value of the currency is independent of any state.
Fair enough, but effectively it has the same economical implications as the gold standard, except maybe made stronger by the fact that the government can't do anything at all to change the way it works, doesn't it?
I think the pro and cons of the gold standard (as listed by Wikipedia) seem to apply fairly well to the Bitcoin economy.
I think the pro and cons of the gold standard (as listed by Wikipedia) seem to apply fairly well to the Bitcoin economy.
Literally. Bitcoin politics is goldbug politics with the buzzword changed. https://davidgerard.co.uk/blockchain/the-conspiracist-gold-b...
The key book nailing down every dot of this is "The Politics of Bitcoin" by David Golumbia. https://www.amazon.com/dp/1517901804/
The key book nailing down every dot of this is "The Politics of Bitcoin" by David Golumbia. https://www.amazon.com/dp/1517901804/
The idea of Bitcoin replacing fiat is a vision, not a plan.
People assume, or just like to believe, that as Bitcoin adoption grows, the advantages of Bitcoin will far surpass fiat and people will gradually start moving to it as a de facto currency. This will/would be an organic process, likely to last a few decades at least.
People assume, or just like to believe, that as Bitcoin adoption grows, the advantages of Bitcoin will far surpass fiat and people will gradually start moving to it as a de facto currency. This will/would be an organic process, likely to last a few decades at least.
[deleted]
Bitcoin is a threat to the Keynesian model. That said, it still has a long way to go in order to take over fiat currency.
I hold many assets in this space including ETH and NEO. There are tons of scams and money grabs with ICOs. While this announcement has been pretty brutal for me, I think it is ultimately a good thing for the industry as a whole.
I think ICOs can be extremely beneficial for teams to raise money. But a lot of people buying these tokens do not understand what they're getting in return. I'd like to see it become easier to actually own equity or a % of a company's revenue by holding tokens. Hopefully these future regulations will build trust in the ecosystem by minimizing scams and providing clarity. More trust yields more people converting fiat -> crypto... which should yield a healthier less volatile ecosystem.
I think ICOs can be extremely beneficial for teams to raise money. But a lot of people buying these tokens do not understand what they're getting in return. I'd like to see it become easier to actually own equity or a % of a company's revenue by holding tokens. Hopefully these future regulations will build trust in the ecosystem by minimizing scams and providing clarity. More trust yields more people converting fiat -> crypto... which should yield a healthier less volatile ecosystem.
> I hold many assets in this space including ETH and NEO. There are tons of scams and money grabs with ICOs.
Case in point, NEO is probably one of the scammiest so-called "crypto" offerings out there
Case in point, NEO is probably one of the scammiest so-called "crypto" offerings out there
How so? It has a lot of ties to industry already, good development, and plenty of evidence of delivering on their roadmap. That's already better than most crypto-currencies.
> It has a lot of ties to industry already
Like what? Every partnership or "tie" that I've ever heard of ends up being a rumor bordering on outright falsehood - like Microsoft (x2). 2 out of 3 ICOs they had announced prior to the ban ended up being delayed by 6 months or more, quite likely due to platform immaturity.
> good development
For an alpha / early stage crypto project, maybe. However they lack all the features that NEO actually brags about and the codebase is an untestable C# mess where core modules are more or less opaque to everyone but the main developer. It's a security nightmare waiting to happen, and a usability nightmare in the moment : building & publishing the simplest dapp on the platform is basically a non starter right now.
> plenty of evidence of delivering on their roadmap
Again, like what? The platform doesn't actually do anything yet. It basically consists of a few centralized servers and a centrally mined (and centrally owned) token. They're nowhere close to even delivering on dBFT itself, let alone high-concept stuff like mapping physical goods to a "digital identity".
> That's already better than most crypto-currencies.
Not if you compare it to other "currencies" in anything close to the same price range. Its valuation is far and away driven by clever marketing and uninformed speculation.
Like what? Every partnership or "tie" that I've ever heard of ends up being a rumor bordering on outright falsehood - like Microsoft (x2). 2 out of 3 ICOs they had announced prior to the ban ended up being delayed by 6 months or more, quite likely due to platform immaturity.
> good development
For an alpha / early stage crypto project, maybe. However they lack all the features that NEO actually brags about and the codebase is an untestable C# mess where core modules are more or less opaque to everyone but the main developer. It's a security nightmare waiting to happen, and a usability nightmare in the moment : building & publishing the simplest dapp on the platform is basically a non starter right now.
> plenty of evidence of delivering on their roadmap
Again, like what? The platform doesn't actually do anything yet. It basically consists of a few centralized servers and a centrally mined (and centrally owned) token. They're nowhere close to even delivering on dBFT itself, let alone high-concept stuff like mapping physical goods to a "digital identity".
> That's already better than most crypto-currencies.
Not if you compare it to other "currencies" in anything close to the same price range. Its valuation is far and away driven by clever marketing and uninformed speculation.
Is their website neo.org? Because that website won't load for me after about 5 minutes. Not exactly inspiring a lot of trust for someone who wants to learn about them.
As far as I understand financial regulation ICOs are illegal in most countries. It is just a matter of enforcing the existing rules.
Buy the dip! :)
It's a greate decision!
Authoritarian governments will always act to protect their own monopoly of the economy. That's why we need cryptos in the first place!
There's a large difference between banning ICOs and banning crypto currencies entirely
that being said this does feel a lot like a throw back to 2014 and earlier with "China bans bitcoin"
that being said this does feel a lot like a throw back to 2014 and earlier with "China bans bitcoin"
With ICOs, there is a risk that people outside of the party circles actually making enough money to question and ask for some change.
With most ICOs there is no risk that anyone other than the persons who created the ICO's will make money.
If you mean that there are plenty of ICOs that are scams operated by criminals, they yes you are probably right but regulation doesn't stop crime.
Can you actually picture in your mind a criminal preparing to do something criminal and stopping because it's actually illegal too?
Can you actually picture in your mind a criminal preparing to do something criminal and stopping because it's actually illegal too?
Had to dig around 3 sites before finding a definition for ICO:
ICO (Initial Crypto-Token Offering) refers to financing through the issuance of encrypted tokens (Crypto-Token).
ICO (Initial Crypto-Token Offering) refers to financing through the issuance of encrypted tokens (Crypto-Token).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Initial_Coin_Offering
People should really learn to define acronyms before using them in all writing mediums. I don't care if the author has used the term 10,000 with colleagues, he should still define them upon their first use in the article body.
People should really learn to define acronyms before using them in all writing mediums. I don't care if the author has used the term 10,000 with colleagues, he should still define them upon their first use in the article body.
Thanks.
I read the whole article wondering what on earth it meant. Then I went on Wikipedia which is usually pretty good with TLAs (Three Letters Acronyms).
So I made a point in reading the whole article just to figure out if they were at least defining it loosly...
there's that:
>ICOs involve raising funding by creating and selling new crypto tokens — commonly based on Ethereum — to investors
Which is not really in depth. It got me wondering if the person writing it understood what it meant.
Please don't do that when you write, always assume the person you're writing for doesn't know what you're talking about.
I read the whole article wondering what on earth it meant. Then I went on Wikipedia which is usually pretty good with TLAs (Three Letters Acronyms).
So I made a point in reading the whole article just to figure out if they were at least defining it loosly...
there's that:
>ICOs involve raising funding by creating and selling new crypto tokens — commonly based on Ethereum — to investors
Which is not really in depth. It got me wondering if the person writing it understood what it meant.
Please don't do that when you write, always assume the person you're writing for doesn't know what you're talking about.
Originally Initial Coin Offering, but that's been retrofitted to a less securities-y definition.
It's important to note that ICOs are a mechanism rather than a financial instrument and it's the nature of the underlying financial instrument that generally influences the legality.
For example if it's used as pre-sale (i.e. currency that will be used in product for a future product) then that's likely legal in most places, if it's used as a proxy for equity then it's likely illegal in most countries (most countries prohibit unregulated share offerings to non-sophisticated consumers).
Although in some cases ICOs might get considered as gambling if the purpose is primarily considered to be for speculation rather than whatever the underlying product is.
For example if it's used as pre-sale (i.e. currency that will be used in product for a future product) then that's likely legal in most places, if it's used as a proxy for equity then it's likely illegal in most countries (most countries prohibit unregulated share offerings to non-sophisticated consumers).
Although in some cases ICOs might get considered as gambling if the purpose is primarily considered to be for speculation rather than whatever the underlying product is.
not a lawyer but be careful, some "products" like a club membership for example, have been ruled as actually securities
in short, any "product" can be a security if there is even a hint of speculative investment activity (and a motivated prosecutor)
really it is less about logic and definitions...this audience wants to parse things and recompile. in law and moreso in regulatory affairs, it is far more about guiding behavior by carrots or sticks to a particular philosophical/moral/politial/economic subjective end goal
in short, any "product" can be a security if there is even a hint of speculative investment activity (and a motivated prosecutor)
really it is less about logic and definitions...this audience wants to parse things and recompile. in law and moreso in regulatory affairs, it is far more about guiding behavior by carrots or sticks to a particular philosophical/moral/politial/economic subjective end goal
A lot of people already knew about that and was able to profit in the weekend. Some coins just jumped nowhere and now will crash. Hshare has passed 1 billion market cap and will be probably be evaluated less than 10 million at the end of the day. Walton, Loopring, NAV...
BTCChina's ICOCoin ($insert yo dawg joke here) stopped trading since saturday, I think most sane investors saw this coming from a mile away.
Necessary.
Just because you dont like something doesn't mean it should be illegal, what ever happened to Caveat Emptor?
Interesting.
To a relative outsider, a lot of the current movement in the crypto-currency space seems to be about amplifying the holdings of those who already hold. The BCC fork, for instance, effectively gave current bitcoin holders an overnight boost in the 15-20% range.
ICOs appear to be a way to finance things in a kickstartetr type way, only with instantly trade-able coins in the form of a new crypto-currency, with buy-in conducted in ether. These provide a new speculation vehicle, often/usually totally divorced from the underlying activity of the company.
Both of these things neatly skip any sort of bootstrapping phase that might be inherent to a new crypto-currency, and serve insiders and the already crypto-wealthy rather than newcomers or those outside the existing bubble. The whole thing seems very tenuous, and speaks very much of an "in-crowd".
To a relative outsider, a lot of the current movement in the crypto-currency space seems to be about amplifying the holdings of those who already hold. The BCC fork, for instance, effectively gave current bitcoin holders an overnight boost in the 15-20% range.
ICOs appear to be a way to finance things in a kickstartetr type way, only with instantly trade-able coins in the form of a new crypto-currency, with buy-in conducted in ether. These provide a new speculation vehicle, often/usually totally divorced from the underlying activity of the company.
Both of these things neatly skip any sort of bootstrapping phase that might be inherent to a new crypto-currency, and serve insiders and the already crypto-wealthy rather than newcomers or those outside the existing bubble. The whole thing seems very tenuous, and speaks very much of an "in-crowd".
> Both of these things neatly skip any sort of bootstrapping phase
So true. That bootstrapping phase has been reduced to dream up a whitepaper and that's basically it. All what comes afterwards to pump the launch is clever marketing (I've seen Google ads, FB ads, celebs on Twitter etc etc). I cannot understand why it is legal to behave like that.
So true. That bootstrapping phase has been reduced to dream up a whitepaper and that's basically it. All what comes afterwards to pump the launch is clever marketing (I've seen Google ads, FB ads, celebs on Twitter etc etc). I cannot understand why it is legal to behave like that.
Unless fiscal policy of global CB's includes halting of QE-like initiatives and/or raising historically low interest rates, we're only going to see more of the same, regardless of legalities.
And every coin (except for 5) is in the red on coinmarketcap.
Lots of people dislike ICOs, some for good reasons. But ICOs is a general mechanism and the specifics differ. Are some ICOs ponzi schemes? Sure. But this move is about capital controls, little else. I am surprised so many people are defending this as a good thing. Do you want to outlaw all VC money too?
[deleted]
Is this truly a ban on all ICOs, i.e. the technology? Is there a decent translation of the report at http://www.pbc.gov.cn/goutongjiaoliu/113456/113469/3374222/ ?
I don't see why projects such as "useless etherum token" https://uetoken.com/ should be banned.
You may want to ban trading the token to prevent money laundering but that would apply to all crypto coins.
I don't see why projects such as "useless etherum token" https://uetoken.com/ should be banned.
You may want to ban trading the token to prevent money laundering but that would apply to all crypto coins.
> https://uetoken.com/
Did they actually do an "ICO" or was it showing as "finished" from the get-go?
Let's find out!
30 seconds later.
https://web.archive.org/web/20170627123240/https://uetoken.c...
https://etherchain.org/account/0xbe5c1c298d0088886146a906cdf...
So they did but apparently nobody sent them any money, unless they also used some other addresses.
Another 60 seconds after that.
Actually they have a link on the current https://uetoken.com leading to https://etherchain.org/account/0xbe5c1c298d0088886146a906cdf... with 23562 txns total at the moment. Wonder if any of it was legit and if he got any money out of it.
Did they actually do an "ICO" or was it showing as "finished" from the get-go?
Let's find out!
30 seconds later.
https://web.archive.org/web/20170627123240/https://uetoken.c...
https://etherchain.org/account/0xbe5c1c298d0088886146a906cdf...
So they did but apparently nobody sent them any money, unless they also used some other addresses.
Another 60 seconds after that.
Actually they have a link on the current https://uetoken.com leading to https://etherchain.org/account/0xbe5c1c298d0088886146a906cdf... with 23562 txns total at the moment. Wonder if any of it was legit and if he got any money out of it.
https://coinmarketcap.com/assets/useless-ethereum-token/
250USD as in yesterday.
250USD as in yesterday.
I think he got around $90,000 USD out of it.
$62750 according to his twitter https://twitter.com/uetoken?lang=en
Woah :O
I'm amazed it's even a case of banning them; I'd just automatically assumed they were illegal basically everywhere. It's an unregulated securities market, surely?
Some of them are just pre-sales of whatever product the token is supposed to be about. This sort of ICO is (probably) legal: it's just a re-invention of the Green Stamps of the C20th.
And about as useful.
And about as useful.
A lot of people seem to suggest that some kind of regulation, or even outright ban, of ICOs is necessary. Apparently in order to prevent people from loosing their money on risky investments?
I don't really understand why it is appropriate for someone else to tell me how to spend my hard earned money? Isn't that what freedom of choice is about? Even if I'm being manipulated into a scam, it is still MY choice.
Let people spend their ICO money the way they spend their votes. Its basically the same form of manipulation anyway.
I don't really understand why it is appropriate for someone else to tell me how to spend my hard earned money? Isn't that what freedom of choice is about? Even if I'm being manipulated into a scam, it is still MY choice.
Let people spend their ICO money the way they spend their votes. Its basically the same form of manipulation anyway.
If you're being manipulated into a scam, it's not your really your choice, you are not consenting to being scammed, you are consenting to whatever proposition made sense to you on the surface, but was not going to hold up due to withheld information from the recipient of your money. Nobody volunteers or makes a choice to be scammed.
Not all ICOs are scams. Isn't freedom also the freedom to make you own mistakes? I mean, if we were to use your logic for any decisions that may lead to bad outcomes, we would live in a totalitarian state.
I think we already live in a totalitarian state because of the "freedom" to make your own mistake (aka be scammed by someone with more information and bad intentions, aka "the market").
I am making a choice to believe them that it is not a scam.
You can only know if their statement was true or not after the fact.
We all make choices like this daily on regular basis. However, its apparently appropriate to be scammed into various political promises, product descriptions, etc. But its not okay to be part of this 'ICO lottery' because one can easily be scammed? Give me a break.
We all make choices like this daily on regular basis. However, its apparently appropriate to be scammed into various political promises, product descriptions, etc. But its not okay to be part of this 'ICO lottery' because one can easily be scammed? Give me a break.
They don't ban you from spending your money. They ban companies from receiving your money. Companies that are malignant and consumers should be protected from.
This is not a new concept. The same regulations apply if you start telling your friends that you're smart and that they should let you manage their money for them.
This is not a new concept. The same regulations apply if you start telling your friends that you're smart and that they should let you manage their money for them.
> This is not a new concept. The same regulations apply if you start telling your friends that you're smart and that they should let you manage their money for them.
u mean like a 'friends and family' investment round? ;)
u mean like a 'friends and family' investment round? ;)
You don't understand why this community is butthurt over the way ICOs work, they're getting a very bad deal with the traditional investing route, so they're furious over other people getting great deals, calling all the projects a scam and celebrating government influence...
Very good HN very good.
Very good HN very good.
Many believe common people do not know what's good for them and that it's ok for special groups of people (governments) to impose their choices by force on the common people for their own good.
Because lots of them look like outright scams and are fueling a bubble which is bad for everyone because they cause negative externalities [1] such as systematic risk [2].
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality#Negative
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systemic_risk
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality#Negative
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systemic_risk
I assume most of the HN readers are from USA and I can't believe my eyes what I'm reading here. People cheering a government's ban on what its citizens can do with their lawfully earned money.
I worked for my money, I paid huge amounts of taxes on them. Why is it ok for somebody to come and tell me what I can and can't do with them, and then telling me it's in my best interest to not be allowed to invest them.
I worked for my money, I paid huge amounts of taxes on them. Why is it ok for somebody to come and tell me what I can and can't do with them, and then telling me it's in my best interest to not be allowed to invest them.
> People cheering a government's ban on what its citizens can do with their lawfully earned money.
Are you okay with laws about how money is earned? Why? If yes, why are you not okay with laws about how money is spent?
There are a vast number of regulations imposed on how you spend your money is spent in any government. Do you categorically disagree with them or are you okay with some of them?
EDIT: Every time a thread pops up like this, Hacker News seems to decide it's time to reinvent socioeconomic policy from first principles. Often libertarian principles. I'm trying to inject basic questions in here because much of the comment-response activity in the thread seems to be reactionary debating without substantive proof or rebuttal.
Outrage is fine! Your opinions are (probably) fine! But please try not to use personal opinions as axioms. Deconstruct your reasoning just a bit folks.
Are you okay with laws about how money is earned? Why? If yes, why are you not okay with laws about how money is spent?
There are a vast number of regulations imposed on how you spend your money is spent in any government. Do you categorically disagree with them or are you okay with some of them?
EDIT: Every time a thread pops up like this, Hacker News seems to decide it's time to reinvent socioeconomic policy from first principles. Often libertarian principles. I'm trying to inject basic questions in here because much of the comment-response activity in the thread seems to be reactionary debating without substantive proof or rebuttal.
Outrage is fine! Your opinions are (probably) fine! But please try not to use personal opinions as axioms. Deconstruct your reasoning just a bit folks.
The principle is pretty simple, if it's two consenting adults doing something that does not impact a third person rights, they should be allowed to do it.
So I would be okay with laws about how money is earned, if there's a third person being impacted (pollution, for example), and i am okay with laws about how money is spent if there's a third person being impacted (idk, hiring a assassin)
Of course when one of the two consenting parties does something outside of the contract (false advertising, fraud, etc.), it should also be unlawful.
Everything else someone does to limit my choices/actions I do disagree.
So I would be okay with laws about how money is earned, if there's a third person being impacted (pollution, for example), and i am okay with laws about how money is spent if there's a third person being impacted (idk, hiring a assassin)
Of course when one of the two consenting parties does something outside of the contract (false advertising, fraud, etc.), it should also be unlawful.
Everything else someone does to limit my choices/actions I do disagree.
Except scams and bubbles cause negative externalities [1] such as systematic risk [2] so they do impact other people.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality#Negative
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systemic_risk
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality#Negative
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systemic_risk
Do you agree that certain activities that don't directly impact specific individuals can introduce risk for other people in general? If so, how do you feel about laws designed to limit your ability to take part in those activities?
I'm not sure if i follow you.
But i will try to answer the best i can.
When i go to the bank, i may be participating in bank run, and i may the reason the bank collapses, and then the economy. My action of going to the bank does not usually causes that. But if you attempt to ban me from going to the bank because i may cause a bank collapse, it will certainly cause more harm then good.
And that's how we should look at the problem. The reason i have a principle that people should not interfere with my freedom to do as i chose (as long as i don't harm others), is because i believe that it will provide the best outcome possible, not the other way around.
That does not mean that there's no law that prevents two people of making a voluntary transaction that can give a better outcome than everything open. But it's just impossible to really know. The same reason your questions are hard to answer, if i disregard the principle, it will be hard to make such laws. So someone has to decide what becomes law, and what does not, and when that happens, those law will be imperfect, and you will have people who will benefit from some laws, and some who will be harmed. People harmed will not care so much for this imperfect and unfair system, and might as well ignore such (or other laws). People will also have incentives to make such laws, as they can benefit from it.
And you will never get a general agreement that such law will really do more harm than good, because people will have different views of that, rightly so. The law that prevents me from investing, may protect me from a bad decision, but will also prevent me from a good one. But as i am able to decide to get out of my house every day, and risk losing my life on a car accident, i should be able to decide what to do with what is mine. Even if some protection does look nice on paper, i do not believe i need to be protect from myself in a way that will limit my choices. If someone wants their choices be limited, just make it optional, and I will be able to decide if the protection is good or not. I doubt most people will really care about what people in the government think it is the right choice.
But i will try to answer the best i can.
When i go to the bank, i may be participating in bank run, and i may the reason the bank collapses, and then the economy. My action of going to the bank does not usually causes that. But if you attempt to ban me from going to the bank because i may cause a bank collapse, it will certainly cause more harm then good.
And that's how we should look at the problem. The reason i have a principle that people should not interfere with my freedom to do as i chose (as long as i don't harm others), is because i believe that it will provide the best outcome possible, not the other way around.
That does not mean that there's no law that prevents two people of making a voluntary transaction that can give a better outcome than everything open. But it's just impossible to really know. The same reason your questions are hard to answer, if i disregard the principle, it will be hard to make such laws. So someone has to decide what becomes law, and what does not, and when that happens, those law will be imperfect, and you will have people who will benefit from some laws, and some who will be harmed. People harmed will not care so much for this imperfect and unfair system, and might as well ignore such (or other laws). People will also have incentives to make such laws, as they can benefit from it.
And you will never get a general agreement that such law will really do more harm than good, because people will have different views of that, rightly so. The law that prevents me from investing, may protect me from a bad decision, but will also prevent me from a good one. But as i am able to decide to get out of my house every day, and risk losing my life on a car accident, i should be able to decide what to do with what is mine. Even if some protection does look nice on paper, i do not believe i need to be protect from myself in a way that will limit my choices. If someone wants their choices be limited, just make it optional, and I will be able to decide if the protection is good or not. I doubt most people will really care about what people in the government think it is the right choice.
LOL its like asking victim to prove why attacker should not attack him. The onus is NOT on victim but the attacker. Its the attacker who made the first contact. Its the attacker who has to prove from the mutually agreed upon set of axioms.
To be honest I'm really not following your position here. Who is the victim and who is the attacker, and how does that respond to my point?
Attacker = Overreeaching Govt/Collectivism.
Victim = Individual.
> how does that respond to my point?
You just asked an individual to justify why its not okey for govt/people to interfere between two consenting adults.
But then I think the debate would turn into battle of axioms which is pointless.
The question should be, can/how would people with contradictory political axioms co-exist ? I think its not possible, people can only vote with feet and hope for best. Political debate is not an intellectual debate like scientific/programming debate but war with real losses and HN now is a battlefield.
> how does that respond to my point?
You just asked an individual to justify why its not okey for govt/people to interfere between two consenting adults.
But then I think the debate would turn into battle of axioms which is pointless.
The question should be, can/how would people with contradictory political axioms co-exist ? I think its not possible, people can only vote with feet and hope for best. Political debate is not an intellectual debate like scientific/programming debate but war with real losses and HN now is a battlefield.
Ah, I understand. I disagree with the analogy then. If the two consenting adults are not harming each other they can still be a liability to other people. Risk can be introduced indirectly even if no individual is directly harmed. How can you adjust your analogy to account for that?
As I said this is battle of axioms. The issue cannot be solved with debate.
What I'm seeing is the classic regulation vs. non debate.
What's missing is recognition of the historical precedent of regulating what people can/cannot do with their money in the USA and China's proposed plans to follow suit.
Before the JOBS Act, for 70+ years the American Securities and Exchange Commission was very specific about what non-accredited investors could do with their money. [0]
While China does not have an "accredited investor" status, its version of the SEC put forth a proposal in 2014 that would create accredited investor regulations almost exactly in line with the American SEC's regulations. [1]
Intent may be worth looking at here.
China sites terrorist financing and money laundering as problems with ICO's. I don't know the veracity of that concern, but I do know that citing terrorism, child pornography, prostitution/human trafficking, etc. are nearly impossible to argue against and thus can be used as a means to pass regulations/legislation that is rife for abuse (see the USA Patriot Act).
On the other hand, China banned exchanges allowing people to buy bitcoin in Yuan back in 2013, but today support for buying bitcoin has returned (from the article).
It seems both China and America (via the SEC) are trying to figure out what to do with ICOs. Regulation seems inevitable, but each country has thus far taken a different tact.
Does any of this make regulating/banning ICOs right or wrong? I don't know, but that seems like a different debate.
[0] https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/retrieveECFR?gp=&SID=8edfd12967...
[1] https://www.crowdfundinsider.com/2015/10/75384-crowdfunding-... (See "Challenges: Policy and Regulatory Challenges) section)
What's missing is recognition of the historical precedent of regulating what people can/cannot do with their money in the USA and China's proposed plans to follow suit.
Before the JOBS Act, for 70+ years the American Securities and Exchange Commission was very specific about what non-accredited investors could do with their money. [0]
While China does not have an "accredited investor" status, its version of the SEC put forth a proposal in 2014 that would create accredited investor regulations almost exactly in line with the American SEC's regulations. [1]
Intent may be worth looking at here.
China sites terrorist financing and money laundering as problems with ICO's. I don't know the veracity of that concern, but I do know that citing terrorism, child pornography, prostitution/human trafficking, etc. are nearly impossible to argue against and thus can be used as a means to pass regulations/legislation that is rife for abuse (see the USA Patriot Act).
On the other hand, China banned exchanges allowing people to buy bitcoin in Yuan back in 2013, but today support for buying bitcoin has returned (from the article).
It seems both China and America (via the SEC) are trying to figure out what to do with ICOs. Regulation seems inevitable, but each country has thus far taken a different tact.
Does any of this make regulating/banning ICOs right or wrong? I don't know, but that seems like a different debate.
[0] https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/retrieveECFR?gp=&SID=8edfd12967...
[1] https://www.crowdfundinsider.com/2015/10/75384-crowdfunding-... (See "Challenges: Policy and Regulatory Challenges) section)
> China sites terrorist financing and money laundering as problems with ICO'e
You can maliciously use your paper money right there in your leather wallet to do all sort of criminal activity, should we ban regular money too?
You can maliciously use your paper money right there in your leather wallet to do all sort of criminal activity, should we ban regular money too?
[deleted]
Because when the whole system collapses due to gigantic bubbles explodind (caused by the lesser financially educated masses) the government will likely use your tax money to keeps thing afloat and you won't like that either. Your money only has value in an economically stable context.
First off, bubbles are a side effect of the money cycle which is created by central banking -- both the Dotcom and 2008 bubbles were created by the Fed selling money below cost, building a massive carry trade in, for instance, houses.
Secondly, if there is a crash, the best thing to do is nothing. Let the people who invested poorly get wiped out-- it's better for the economy. (There are examples of this too- crashes that happened before the federal reserve which were much worse than the 1929 crash, but which are forgotten to history because they didn't create Great Depressions because there was no Federal Reserve to "bail out the system")
The bailouts of 2008 were the worst thing that came out of that. Government shouldn't be bailing out these businesses, especially after those businesses made billions getting below cost money from that same government.
IT's not really economics you're talking about here but the corruption in the system.
Bailouts are part of the game-- thats how they scam us. Bailouts don't protect us (that's the con.)
For an excellent history of money and the last 100 years of bailouts and how this exact same thing has been done dozens of times already-- check out G Edward Griffens "The Creature from Jekyll Island" -- it's a history book about money, but it's anything but dry.
Secondly, if there is a crash, the best thing to do is nothing. Let the people who invested poorly get wiped out-- it's better for the economy. (There are examples of this too- crashes that happened before the federal reserve which were much worse than the 1929 crash, but which are forgotten to history because they didn't create Great Depressions because there was no Federal Reserve to "bail out the system")
The bailouts of 2008 were the worst thing that came out of that. Government shouldn't be bailing out these businesses, especially after those businesses made billions getting below cost money from that same government.
IT's not really economics you're talking about here but the corruption in the system.
Bailouts are part of the game-- thats how they scam us. Bailouts don't protect us (that's the con.)
For an excellent history of money and the last 100 years of bailouts and how this exact same thing has been done dozens of times already-- check out G Edward Griffens "The Creature from Jekyll Island" -- it's a history book about money, but it's anything but dry.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1819
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1837
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1857
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1873
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1884 (bonus https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depression_of_1882-85)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1893
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1896
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1837
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1857
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1873
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1884 (bonus https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depression_of_1882-85)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1893
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1896
From the comment you're replying to:
> Let the people who invested poorly get wiped out-- it's better for the economy. (There are examples of this too - crashes that happened before the federal reserve which were much worse than the 1929 crash, but which are forgotten to history because they didn't create Great Depressions
Of course there were panics and corrections before the federal system - as rothbardrand mentioned, they didn't create events as bad as the depression.
The "bonus" you mentioned lasts 3 years, where as the great depression: "started in 1929 and lasted until 1941" (src: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Depression). Note: "The Depression of 1882-85 was not inaugurated by financial disaster or mass panic, but was rather an economic downturn that came about through a protracted and gradual process".
Compare that to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wall_Street_Crash_of_1929 and tell me where the line between "market corrections" / "downturns" and "financial disaster" / "mass panic".
But showing evidence is needless: the federal reserve _necessarily_ aggravates the business cycle by promoting mal-investment. This was Murray Rothbard's mentor Ludwig von Mises' great work "Human Action" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Action), specifically Chapter XX section 8, "The Monetary or Circulation Credit Theory of the Trade Cycle" - (full text is online here: https://mises.org/library/human-action-0/html/pp/818). One of the key tenants of Austrian economics and in particular the work of von Mises is that it is deductive from pure logic, rather than from experimental or statistical observations. Austrian economics is more akin to biology than psychology.
> Let the people who invested poorly get wiped out-- it's better for the economy. (There are examples of this too - crashes that happened before the federal reserve which were much worse than the 1929 crash, but which are forgotten to history because they didn't create Great Depressions
Of course there were panics and corrections before the federal system - as rothbardrand mentioned, they didn't create events as bad as the depression.
The "bonus" you mentioned lasts 3 years, where as the great depression: "started in 1929 and lasted until 1941" (src: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Depression). Note: "The Depression of 1882-85 was not inaugurated by financial disaster or mass panic, but was rather an economic downturn that came about through a protracted and gradual process".
Compare that to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wall_Street_Crash_of_1929 and tell me where the line between "market corrections" / "downturns" and "financial disaster" / "mass panic".
But showing evidence is needless: the federal reserve _necessarily_ aggravates the business cycle by promoting mal-investment. This was Murray Rothbard's mentor Ludwig von Mises' great work "Human Action" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Action), specifically Chapter XX section 8, "The Monetary or Circulation Credit Theory of the Trade Cycle" - (full text is online here: https://mises.org/library/human-action-0/html/pp/818). One of the key tenants of Austrian economics and in particular the work of von Mises is that it is deductive from pure logic, rather than from experimental or statistical observations. Austrian economics is more akin to biology than psychology.
The Panic of 1837 was a financial crisis in the United States that touched off a major recession that lasted until 1843---6 years.
The Panic of 1873 was a financial crisis that triggered a depression in Europe and North America that lasted from 1873 until 1879 (1897 (!) in Britain)---6 years.
The 1882-1885 depression included a year when "an estimated 5% of all American factories and mines completely shuttered during the 12 months running from July 1, 1884, to July 1, 1885".
The panic of 1893 included a depression that extended to 1897, a couple of years with 12-14% unemployment, with peaks somewhere around 17-19% and 25% in Pennsylvania, 35% in New York, and 43% in Michigan, and included the panic of 1896.
Keep in mind two things: these occurred in the 19th century, when the United States was largely, perhaps almost completely an agrarian country, and that when banks fail (a common occurrence in many of these), you don't get your money back out.
The Great Depression is called that because it was the biggest, but it was hardly a completely new and unique thing.
[Now, as to Austrian economics, if "it is deductive from pure logic, rather than from experimental or statistical observations", I would think it had more in common with mathematics than either biology or psychology. Or perhaps alchemy.]
The Panic of 1873 was a financial crisis that triggered a depression in Europe and North America that lasted from 1873 until 1879 (1897 (!) in Britain)---6 years.
The 1882-1885 depression included a year when "an estimated 5% of all American factories and mines completely shuttered during the 12 months running from July 1, 1884, to July 1, 1885".
The panic of 1893 included a depression that extended to 1897, a couple of years with 12-14% unemployment, with peaks somewhere around 17-19% and 25% in Pennsylvania, 35% in New York, and 43% in Michigan, and included the panic of 1896.
Keep in mind two things: these occurred in the 19th century, when the United States was largely, perhaps almost completely an agrarian country, and that when banks fail (a common occurrence in many of these), you don't get your money back out.
The Great Depression is called that because it was the biggest, but it was hardly a completely new and unique thing.
[Now, as to Austrian economics, if "it is deductive from pure logic, rather than from experimental or statistical observations", I would think it had more in common with mathematics than either biology or psychology. Or perhaps alchemy.]
Right, to reiterate, we're saying there _were of course_ business cycles before the federal reserve, just like there was _of course_ monetary intervention then as well.
The OP and I are saying that the federal reserve _exaggerated_ the depression. Your pointing to much smaller prior events is a non-starter.
And yes, biology is not free of observation, my point was that it is more closely associated with deduction rather than statistical inference - but yes, mathematics would be even closer an analog - if I had said that a mathematician would have argued that some economists use statistical inference - goes on ad nauseum.
Still not sure what you're trying to say, but yes, there was a business cycle before a necessarily large increase in mal-investment and there were necessarily larger cycles after said investment.
The OP and I are saying that the federal reserve _exaggerated_ the depression. Your pointing to much smaller prior events is a non-starter.
And yes, biology is not free of observation, my point was that it is more closely associated with deduction rather than statistical inference - but yes, mathematics would be even closer an analog - if I had said that a mathematician would have argued that some economists use statistical inference - goes on ad nauseum.
Still not sure what you're trying to say, but yes, there was a business cycle before a necessarily large increase in mal-investment and there were necessarily larger cycles after said investment.
Hmm... bubbles can also happen without central banking - think the original tulip bubble for example. Also not all bailouts are bad, for example the auto bailout was estimated to have saved ~380k jobs. And it wasn't the auto industry's fault the banking system went wonky. The system may not be perfect but it's not all bad.
The tulip bubble is mostly a myth. [1] [2]
[1] https://stratechery.com/2017/tulips-myths-and-cryptocurrenci... [2] https://medium.com/@adam_selene/tulips-and-other-myths-c7f69...
[1] https://stratechery.com/2017/tulips-myths-and-cryptocurrenci... [2] https://medium.com/@adam_selene/tulips-and-other-myths-c7f69...
> First off, bubbles are a side effect of the money cycle which is created by central banking -- both the Dotcom and 2008 bubbles were created by the Fed selling money below cost, building a massive carry trade in, for instance, houses.
I agree, though I think at the root it's created by people investing irrationally and the wisdom of crowds that comes with it. Part of that can be mitigated by good regulation.
> Secondly, if there is a crash, the best thing to do is nothing. Let the people who invested poorly get wiped out-- it's better for the economy.
This is quite a harsh and risky thing to say. It is the fair solution, however sentiment and trust plays a big role in economics. If big(ger) banks had failed back then it would have been much worse for everyone.
> Bailouts are part of the game-- thats how they scam us. Bailouts don't protect us (that's the con.)
I think the scam actually happens through the years prior to the bailout, when institutions close their eyes to the bubbling up of the economy. Once the crash moment is reached there is not much left to do.
Thanks for the book reference, I have a very long flight tomorrow and I was actually looking for some books!
I agree, though I think at the root it's created by people investing irrationally and the wisdom of crowds that comes with it. Part of that can be mitigated by good regulation.
> Secondly, if there is a crash, the best thing to do is nothing. Let the people who invested poorly get wiped out-- it's better for the economy.
This is quite a harsh and risky thing to say. It is the fair solution, however sentiment and trust plays a big role in economics. If big(ger) banks had failed back then it would have been much worse for everyone.
> Bailouts are part of the game-- thats how they scam us. Bailouts don't protect us (that's the con.)
I think the scam actually happens through the years prior to the bailout, when institutions close their eyes to the bubbling up of the economy. Once the crash moment is reached there is not much left to do.
Thanks for the book reference, I have a very long flight tomorrow and I was actually looking for some books!
I partly agree with you. Banning ICOs will affect lots of potential disruptive and genuine initiatives. Albeit, it also safeguards the people's hard earned money, which majority of them are going to lose out on.
IMO, education and liable regulations for the benefit of both the parties is a much better option, but to speak in favour of a governing body, is a lot more tedious.
Interesting! Why the US government punishes trading drugs with my own money? I mean that is my lawfully earned money! Why? Why? Why?
Precisely. The fact something is yours is irrelevant. If it's your gun, i still want the state to make it illegal to shoot your kids with it.
Did you just morally equate investing in a failed startups with shooting kids?
Reductio ad absurdum seems to be the statists' argument of choice.
While all but the most radical libertarians will concede that some level of regulation is required, nearly every collectivist I talk to implies that permitting any level of individual human agency would turn the world into a Mad Max hellscape.
While all but the most radical libertarians will concede that some level of regulation is required, nearly every collectivist I talk to implies that permitting any level of individual human agency would turn the world into a Mad Max hellscape.
No, the commenter used an analogy to demonstrate similarity. No one drew an equivalence, moral or otherwise, between investing and murder.
Oh yeah, the war on drugs and minority encarceration that has resulted is totally the sort of successful government approach we want to emulate and apply to other sectors. (sarcasm)
I'm also curious about that. If you ever find the answer, please, come back to tell me.
You're intelligent and thus should be free. But the law can't create multiple classes of people with different sets of rights, so to protect the stupid, who can't handle that amount of freedom, your rights need to be limited as well.
^ I assume this is how supporters of such laws think about the issue.
^ I assume this is how supporters of such laws think about the issue.
Ugh what? If you're not directly hurting someone there shouldn't be a law against it.
For instance, a law against DUIs make sense, it's so you don't kill people. A law requiring seat belt wearing - not so much.
For instance, a law against DUIs make sense, it's so you don't kill people. A law requiring seat belt wearing - not so much.
Unless you have state run health care, in which case a law enforcing seat belt wearing (I assume that's what you meant?) could save everyone money.
Unless it decreases short-term fatalities.
Hello! Sorry I'm a bit confused by your reply, do you mean if it ONLY decreases short term ones and not long term?
I just mean there will be additional costs to the state if it means more people survive car crashes and therefore need medical care. But those costs might be outweighed if longer-term survivors tend to have less severe injuries.
If you don't wear a seatbelt and are in an accident you are much more likely to hurt others than if you do wear a seatbelt.
I agree. Just relaying what I believe the common logic is for supporters of such bans.
Would you dispute that a lot of people are idiots?
Would you dispute that even (otherwise) smart people can and do get taken in by dodgy financial schemes?
Regulations are there for good reasons...
Would you dispute that even (otherwise) smart people can and do get taken in by dodgy financial schemes?
Regulations are there for good reasons...
I would dispute that either of these justify banning people from making decisions for themselves on what to spend/invest their money in.
If people really don't want the responsibility of freedom we can bring back indentured servitude, where people sign away their rights.
If people really don't want the responsibility of freedom we can bring back indentured servitude, where people sign away their rights.
Ah, so protecting people from scams is now banning people from their own decisions?
I suppose we should drop all laws about fraud really, why should we ban people from freely transacting with "microsoft" support services who just want to help them with their computer?
I suppose we should drop all laws about fraud really, why should we ban people from freely transacting with "microsoft" support services who just want to help them with their computer?
But banning them from participating in an entire class of financial transactions is not just protecting them from scams. There are token sales that are not scams. It's prohibiting them from entering into legitimate investments that simply don't have government approval (e.g. a securities sale that doesn't ask them for their ID, and thus doesn't meet securities regulations).
At this point there are enough scams to make people cheer for the ban.
Perhaps a better answer would be regulation in a similar way to more traditional IPOs.
>> an securities sale that doesn't ask them for their ID, and thus doesn't meet securities regulations
Perhaps it's just not a good idea to have such a thing? Or perhaps the seller side of the equation, where you can't run an ICO without being registered and regulated, is needed.
I know, this circumscribes some of the allure of the whole area - that it's free of regulation, that it democratises finance etc etc. But like other avenues in life, perhaps we are being shown why the regulations exists in meatspace in the first place.
BTW I'm not trying to argue that all regulations and government actions are correct and useful, I'm very sympathetic to the idea that we are over-governed and over-regulated, in lots of ways. But perhaps not here.
>> an securities sale that doesn't ask them for their ID, and thus doesn't meet securities regulations
Perhaps it's just not a good idea to have such a thing? Or perhaps the seller side of the equation, where you can't run an ICO without being registered and regulated, is needed.
I know, this circumscribes some of the allure of the whole area - that it's free of regulation, that it democratises finance etc etc. But like other avenues in life, perhaps we are being shown why the regulations exists in meatspace in the first place.
BTW I'm not trying to argue that all regulations and government actions are correct and useful, I'm very sympathetic to the idea that we are over-governed and over-regulated, in lots of ways. But perhaps not here.
People support all sorts of things that reduce rights. Doesn't make it okay..
>>Perhaps it's just not a good idea to have such a thing? Or perhaps the seller side of the equation, where you can't run an ICO without being registered and regulated, is needed.
I don't believe we should be limiting other people's right to privacy and to exchange digital tokens (not guns or tanks) under any circumstance.
I think accepting the right of society to impose these limitations on individuals is accepting servility for everyone, and I find that enormously dangerous and harmful.
>>Perhaps it's just not a good idea to have such a thing? Or perhaps the seller side of the equation, where you can't run an ICO without being registered and regulated, is needed.
I don't believe we should be limiting other people's right to privacy and to exchange digital tokens (not guns or tanks) under any circumstance.
I think accepting the right of society to impose these limitations on individuals is accepting servility for everyone, and I find that enormously dangerous and harmful.
Whereas I think that not regulating this space is a great recipe for scams, crashes and monetary instability.
Cryptocurrency is something people choose to go into knowing it's resistant to regulation by design. If they want to avoid the risks associated with fewer regulations, they can remain in the traditional financial market. But yes we've reached an empasse. We fundamentally don't relate on the issue of a third party essentially dictating to an individual what risks they may subject themselves to.
I think we'll begin to find out how regulation-resistant it is over the next few years...
And no, we don't relate on that, and we disagree that the effect is limited to the individual (see "the Great Depression, causes of") or that the individual should have to bear all risk of their actions at all times. Fundamentally I suspect we disagree on what sort of society we want to live in.
And no, we don't relate on that, and we disagree that the effect is limited to the individual (see "the Great Depression, causes of") or that the individual should have to bear all risk of their actions at all times. Fundamentally I suspect we disagree on what sort of society we want to live in.
It may be regulation resistant or it may prove to not be. But the point is people go into it with the expectation that it is designed to try to achieve this property, and they're free to avoid any perceived risks of a regulation resistant industry by remaining in the traditional financial market. This greatly reduces the moral justification of imposing regulations on this space.
We also disagree on the economic causes of events like the Great Depression.
Also I did mention we could bring back an option to voluntarily cede one's own freedom, for those that don't want to bear the responsibility of living with the consequences of their own bad decisions, so I don't think our disagreement is exactly how you've characterised it. It's more like we disagree on whether we should prevent people from having the option to live freely.
We also disagree on the economic causes of events like the Great Depression.
Also I did mention we could bring back an option to voluntarily cede one's own freedom, for those that don't want to bear the responsibility of living with the consequences of their own bad decisions, so I don't think our disagreement is exactly how you've characterised it. It's more like we disagree on whether we should prevent people from having the option to live freely.
> There are token sales that are not scams.
This whole discussion would be much easier with an example.
I have spent quite a lot of time debating cryptocurrencies with people and explaining why they could be useful. But with ICOs I find myself on the other side of the fence. I have yet to find a white paper that isn't either useless or impossible.
> and thus doesn't meet securities regulations
In this context "doesn't meet regulations" more often than not means "we lie about what we will use the money for". I'm not sure that's a good idea.
It is impossible to be serious in a space dominated by liars as they will outcompete you every time.
This whole discussion would be much easier with an example.
I have spent quite a lot of time debating cryptocurrencies with people and explaining why they could be useful. But with ICOs I find myself on the other side of the fence. I have yet to find a white paper that isn't either useless or impossible.
> and thus doesn't meet securities regulations
In this context "doesn't meet regulations" more often than not means "we lie about what we will use the money for". I'm not sure that's a good idea.
It is impossible to be serious in a space dominated by liars as they will outcompete you every time.
BAT and FunFair are neither impossible nor useless.
>I'm not sure that's a good idea.
But if someone thinks it's a good idea, we should forcibly deny them the right to invest their own money in it? I simply don't understand the justification for such a strong-arming intrusion.
>It is impossible to be serious in a space dominated by liars as they will outcompete you every time.
Reputation is a very real and powerful thing in the marketplace. In the long run scammers and other unscrupulous types cannot compete against honest providers who deliver. And by the way, I'm fine with going after confirmed scammers. I'm not okay with centralizing/banning an industry to preemptively prevent scams.
>I'm not sure that's a good idea.
But if someone thinks it's a good idea, we should forcibly deny them the right to invest their own money in it? I simply don't understand the justification for such a strong-arming intrusion.
>It is impossible to be serious in a space dominated by liars as they will outcompete you every time.
Reputation is a very real and powerful thing in the marketplace. In the long run scammers and other unscrupulous types cannot compete against honest providers who deliver. And by the way, I'm fine with going after confirmed scammers. I'm not okay with centralizing/banning an industry to preemptively prevent scams.
Who needs reputation or the long run if you can net a decent amount as a one-off?
I was referring to this:
>>It is impossible to be serious in a space dominated by liars as they will outcompete you every time.
And making the point that the space will be dominated by the competent and honest in the long run if left to its own devices.
My comment was explaining why I believe that would be the long-term outcome.
>>It is impossible to be serious in a space dominated by liars as they will outcompete you every time.
And making the point that the space will be dominated by the competent and honest in the long run if left to its own devices.
My comment was explaining why I believe that would be the long-term outcome.
It may, or it may collapse under the weight of the less scrupulous.
The cryptocurrency market is incredibly resilient. I've been involved in it for years and seen that even after the worst crises, it comes back stronger. Absent centralizing regulations, eventually all of the industries created by the new use-cases it enables will mature, with innovative technological solutions and much higher levels of consumer awareness, which is a much more robust outcome than the regulatory one that would devolve into a closed Old Boys/Girls club like the traditional financial sector.
Can Libertarianism Sustain a Fraud Standard? (https://www.jstor.org/stable/2382215)
OK so I got about two thirds of the way through that before my brain rebelled and my focus went elsewhere.
Thanks for the link though, that was an interesting read. I was aware that "Caveat Emptor" was a bit of a libertarian tenet, and that people like to rely on things like reputation to enforce good trading practice, but that is an interesting explanation of why a libertarian may be against any and all government interference in even blatant fraud.
Thanks for the link though, that was an interesting read. I was aware that "Caveat Emptor" was a bit of a libertarian tenet, and that people like to rely on things like reputation to enforce good trading practice, but that is an interesting explanation of why a libertarian may be against any and all government interference in even blatant fraud.
This is much welcome ruling and US should follow suit. Current modus operandi is of pump and dump to lure unsuspecting people. Some ICOs are borderline scams. Using Facebook ads to promise the riches. It's almost disgusting
I'm always torn in these debates.
I'm all for shutting down assholes tricking people, but at what point does it begin/end?
Short incomplete list off the top of my head of organisations tricking people out of money with scams:
* Most (if not all?) nootropics
* Prosperity gospel
* Nutritional cereal
* Other low fat/diet food stuffs
* Fashion
* Art
* Diamond industry
* etc etc
I'm all for shutting down assholes tricking people, but at what point does it begin/end?
Short incomplete list off the top of my head of organisations tricking people out of money with scams:
* Most (if not all?) nootropics
* Prosperity gospel
* Nutritional cereal
* Other low fat/diet food stuffs
* Fashion
* Art
* Diamond industry
* etc etc
Yeah well there's also shitty companies which are publicly traded, I'm supposed to make my own choice here aren't I? Isn't that the point of investing?
So current situation is like using Google and Facebook ads (literally) to raise money. Exchanges on which these ICOs are traded are not regulated. So volume can be fake and likely is. Furthermore money could be coming from anywhere. It could be money laundering simply. So it's not as simple as government is stopping me from burning my money
Because the first dozen ICOs that turn out to be scams can break consumer confidence across the whole market. When people stop trusting, the system collapses.
This isn't hardship, just put your money somewhere else.
This isn't hardship, just put your money somewhere else.
The reason ICOs were such a boon is that there has been no other path for the middle class to invest in startups.
ICOs gave a level playing field and produced a resulting boom.
Most people don't even know what a cryptocurrency is.
ICOs gave a level playing field and produced a resulting boom.
Most people don't even know what a cryptocurrency is.
> The reason ICOs were such a boon is that there has been no other path for the middle class to invest in startups.
You know what they say about forgetting history...
The middle classes (or lower class) aren't really allowed to invest in business because it's really risky (see: Great Depression). When 1 rich person loses $1 billion, that's sad. When 100000 grandpas lose $10000, that's a national tragedy.
You know what they say about forgetting history...
The middle classes (or lower class) aren't really allowed to invest in business because it's really risky (see: Great Depression). When 1 rich person loses $1 billion, that's sad. When 100000 grandpas lose $10000, that's a national tragedy.
i'd need proof that it's the middle class that invests in ICOs and not money launderers.
Anarchy is not a lot of fun. it usually ends up in pure might makes right. North Korea is a timely example of what the philosophy of might makes right leads us to.
Are you saying that North Korea is an example of what happens when individualism runs amok?
On the contrary, North Korea seems like a collectivist's paradise. Total state control with omnipresent regulation. I wonder what the punishment for trading cryptocurrencies looks like there.
On the contrary, North Korea seems like a collectivist's paradise. Total state control with omnipresent regulation. I wonder what the punishment for trading cryptocurrencies looks like there.
The clue is in the name government.
Wait, so you're in China?
I'm from the US and I'm not a Neocon... I don't cheer any bans.
Not all of us are like that... What's happening here is people are butthurt cause ICOs are more successful and friendly to funders, so they took a very bad deal with the traditional investment route so everything negative against ICOs they are happy.
The HN community just like Reddit is just a bunch of children.
Not all of us are like that... What's happening here is people are butthurt cause ICOs are more successful and friendly to funders, so they took a very bad deal with the traditional investment route so everything negative against ICOs they are happy.
The HN community just like Reddit is just a bunch of children.
Yeah, you'd think the HN crowd would be the ones to welcome ICO with open arms.
> The SEC hasn’t made a firm move in the U.S. yet — despite making announcements
What they've done is very gentle soft-touch stuff. They've been calling ICO promoters and strongly suggesting they get their legal ducks in a row.
https://davidgerard.co.uk/blockchain/2017/09/01/the-sec-told...
Protostarr - who hadn't consulted a lawyer at all - shut down and returned the money; BenjaCoin went "actually we're good" and has argued such to the SEC.
The SEC's approach is considerably softer-touch than most people expected - but despite the rantings of crypto paranoiacs, the government is not in fact there to harsh your mellow. Point 3 of the SEC’s mission statement is "facilitate capital formation" - they explicitly see their job as helping you get rich! But of course, point 2 is "maintain fair, orderly, and efficient markets," and point 1 is "protect investors".
What they've done is very gentle soft-touch stuff. They've been calling ICO promoters and strongly suggesting they get their legal ducks in a row.
https://davidgerard.co.uk/blockchain/2017/09/01/the-sec-told...
Protostarr - who hadn't consulted a lawyer at all - shut down and returned the money; BenjaCoin went "actually we're good" and has argued such to the SEC.
The SEC's approach is considerably softer-touch than most people expected - but despite the rantings of crypto paranoiacs, the government is not in fact there to harsh your mellow. Point 3 of the SEC’s mission statement is "facilitate capital formation" - they explicitly see their job as helping you get rich! But of course, point 2 is "maintain fair, orderly, and efficient markets," and point 1 is "protect investors".
Why don't rich people need protection? Here's the answer: this is their protection. It reduces their competition.
Seriously, these securities rules keep people like me from investing in AirBnB and Uber (two that I caught very early and wanted into)... but we can all go to Vegas and lose $100k in a single weekend. But putting $10k into Uber's seed round is somehow a crime I need to be protected from? Truth of the matter is this is the essence of capitalism-- it is my right to invest in Uber's seed round and Uber's right to have me as an investor (if they consent), whether I am "accredited" or not. This is basic "Freedom of association" which underpins everything from gay marriage to the right to refuse service to barefoot people.
Also, of course, I've lost my own $10k on more than one occasions starting companies. (And I've made much more as well.) Why do I need protection from myself? Especially when the terms of that protection are written by people who don't know what SHA256 is.
No, these regulations mainly keep the middle class and the not-quite-wealthy-enough from investing in the highest upside opportunities. I know it's better to put $10k into 10 different seed rounds than $100k into one seed round. I don't need to be accredited to know that.
And I've certainly lost a lot more than that (and made even more) in the stock market using complicated options strategies involving multiple legs and expirations-- I'm the very definition of a sophisticated investor....
.... but I can't be trusted to give a startup $10k?
This is what regulation tends to do, which people don't seem to get -- it raises the bar keeping the little guy out.
Once again, the rich get richer and the poor and middle class have less opportunity.
PS-- To those responding: Yes, I have heard "but what about the grandmas? won't anyone think of the grandmas???" before. I'm acutely aware of the history of this type of regulation in the USA. Ultimately this stuff keeps grandmas poor.
You should all read G. Edward Griffens "The Creature from Jekyll Island". It's a history book about money, but it's not in the least dry.
Government always has an excuse, usually a claim to be helping or protecting people, when it violates our rights.
Keeping me out of Uber's seed round is a violation of my rights.
Seriously, these securities rules keep people like me from investing in AirBnB and Uber (two that I caught very early and wanted into)... but we can all go to Vegas and lose $100k in a single weekend. But putting $10k into Uber's seed round is somehow a crime I need to be protected from? Truth of the matter is this is the essence of capitalism-- it is my right to invest in Uber's seed round and Uber's right to have me as an investor (if they consent), whether I am "accredited" or not. This is basic "Freedom of association" which underpins everything from gay marriage to the right to refuse service to barefoot people.
Also, of course, I've lost my own $10k on more than one occasions starting companies. (And I've made much more as well.) Why do I need protection from myself? Especially when the terms of that protection are written by people who don't know what SHA256 is.
No, these regulations mainly keep the middle class and the not-quite-wealthy-enough from investing in the highest upside opportunities. I know it's better to put $10k into 10 different seed rounds than $100k into one seed round. I don't need to be accredited to know that.
And I've certainly lost a lot more than that (and made even more) in the stock market using complicated options strategies involving multiple legs and expirations-- I'm the very definition of a sophisticated investor....
.... but I can't be trusted to give a startup $10k?
This is what regulation tends to do, which people don't seem to get -- it raises the bar keeping the little guy out.
Once again, the rich get richer and the poor and middle class have less opportunity.
PS-- To those responding: Yes, I have heard "but what about the grandmas? won't anyone think of the grandmas???" before. I'm acutely aware of the history of this type of regulation in the USA. Ultimately this stuff keeps grandmas poor.
You should all read G. Edward Griffens "The Creature from Jekyll Island". It's a history book about money, but it's not in the least dry.
Government always has an excuse, usually a claim to be helping or protecting people, when it violates our rights.
Keeping me out of Uber's seed round is a violation of my rights.
Although I read what you wrote and to a large extent agree, I have to say, love the name: RothbardRand (Murry Rothbard was a major figure in Austrian School of economics and modern libertarianism. Ayn Rand a philosopher, and developer of the philosophical framework of Objectivism)
Makes sense why you feel this way.
What I will say, is no one stopped you from investing in Uber, besides Uber. Tomorrow I can go out and sell half my C-Corp to a friend. Legally, no one is stopping me, besides me and my contract(s). My company isn't publically traded, and as such, I haven't released shares to be bought and sold.
That being said, if you're talking about "accredition" - that shouldn't stop you from being able to invest in a friend's or aquantences company. At least until you have 35 of said people..
Which I agree is B.S., at the same time - it's just a way to ensure you don't get massive companies like Uber getting billions of funding and providing no services. It's an attempt at curbing a dot-com-esqu bubble. Overall, I do think this is government over reach, but I do see the point.
There are ways around that FYI, for example there isn't a reason a financial advisor couldn't invest on your behalf.
Makes sense why you feel this way.
What I will say, is no one stopped you from investing in Uber, besides Uber. Tomorrow I can go out and sell half my C-Corp to a friend. Legally, no one is stopping me, besides me and my contract(s). My company isn't publically traded, and as such, I haven't released shares to be bought and sold.
That being said, if you're talking about "accredition" - that shouldn't stop you from being able to invest in a friend's or aquantences company. At least until you have 35 of said people..
Which I agree is B.S., at the same time - it's just a way to ensure you don't get massive companies like Uber getting billions of funding and providing no services. It's an attempt at curbing a dot-com-esqu bubble. Overall, I do think this is government over reach, but I do see the point.
There are ways around that FYI, for example there isn't a reason a financial advisor couldn't invest on your behalf.
If Uber had made shares available to unaccredited investors, they would have gotten in trouble. I'm quite certain that the grandparent was not in the list of Travis's top 35 people to raise $10k from, and as such he had no legal opportunity to buy shares, even if Uber had wanted to sell them.
Remember when you could do kickstarters with simulated renders of your product and everyone got scammed constantly?
It's because of that
It's because of that
Never happened. Some kick starters didn't deliver, but you're factually wrong-- these laws have existed for decades before Kickstarter started-- and you ignore my point. You can lose your life savings in a weekend in Las Vegas and nobody bats an eye.
The US recently started allowing startups to raise money from non-accredited investors. It's just that most legitimate startups still prefer raising from legitimate investors.
This has left "startups" like this "company" YayYo, which raise money from TV commercials stating that they'll become the next Uber.
http://www.businessinsider.com/yayyo-ipo-ads-tv-ramy-el-batr...
This has left "startups" like this "company" YayYo, which raise money from TV commercials stating that they'll become the next Uber.
http://www.businessinsider.com/yayyo-ipo-ads-tv-ramy-el-batr...
1) In the alternate reality where you did invest in AirBnb and Uber, how did you manage to concentrate your investments in those two companies, and reject thousands of contenders who eventually folded down? If you also invested in 10,000 photo-sharing apps and "Yo" clones, what are the total portfolio returns?
2) In that alternate reality, what advantage did your money have over YC, Andreessen Horowitz or Benchmark money? Were you able to connect founders to top government decision makers, or bulk up their growing management team with hard-to-get candidates? If the answer is "yes", you could've been awarded advisory shares in Uber and AirBnb without being a qualified investor (a gift is a gift, after all). But since more likely the answer is "no, my money is no different than money from a joe schmoe down the street", you will likely be required to overpay for a ridiculous valuation at seed stage. What effect would that have on your portfolio as a whole?
2) In that alternate reality, what advantage did your money have over YC, Andreessen Horowitz or Benchmark money? Were you able to connect founders to top government decision makers, or bulk up their growing management team with hard-to-get candidates? If the answer is "yes", you could've been awarded advisory shares in Uber and AirBnb without being a qualified investor (a gift is a gift, after all). But since more likely the answer is "no, my money is no different than money from a joe schmoe down the street", you will likely be required to overpay for a ridiculous valuation at seed stage. What effect would that have on your portfolio as a whole?
We tried libertarianism. It doesn't work. I realize the futility of trying to explain this to someone with the username "rothbardrand" but I used to be a libertarian and I finally broke out of it, so maybe this will give someone else teetering on the edge some things to think about.
1. Libertarianism sweeps negative externalities under the rug. Air quality, noise pollution, the costs to society when an elderly person goes bankrupt. The counter arguments are thin. If you don't ban building in a flood plain, people will build in the flood plain. Then the flood will happen and we'll all be worse off.
2. Libertarianism is inefficient because it demands that people become experts in a wide, wide array of topics in order to be healthy and financially secure. Sometimes becoming an expert in a topic is to experience it. For example, I used to be addicted to nicotine. It's one thing to explain with words how addictive it is, it's another to actually be addicted. By introducing a bit of a nanny state we can use laws and taxes as a kind of cross generational memory and save people from having to learn some of the lessons we had to learn.
3. Libertarianism doesn't address the concept of power. It pits the whole world through the lens of rights when there are other concerns like foreign citizens owning portions of companies critical to our national security or owning large portions of our media.
4. Libertarianism underestimates how much work the state puts towards fighting international crime. We use the financial system to track where mafias hide money and how they organize their money laundering schemes.
The problem with leaving libertarianism is that after years of thinking about everything through the lens of rights and the individual one is left with the question "well, what matters then?" and the answer is difficult, but here is my best shot:
The world is one of consequence. So when think about policies we should be concerned with our ends, but we should choose our ends as if we didn't know who we were in the world beforehand.
So my answer is roughly "consequentialism tempered by individual / human rights".
You don't get to buy into Uber's round because they aren't a public company. If they become a public company they have to open their books. Why? Because widespread fraud happened before this and it wasn't just to little old grandma. Sorry about the violation of your rights, but if I didn't know who I would be beforehand, this is what I think would lead to the best average outcome.
As for the middle class not being able to invest in the best companies, I agree with you that we should change some of our regulations. I agree that the rich are getting richer because not enough companies are going public. Let's fix the regulations that empower investment banks at the expense of the entrepreneurs and potential investors, and while we're at it let's raise taxes on the super rich and close their loopholes.
But at the same time let's acknowledge something else: The middle class and the poor have it best in countries like Sweden or Switzerland or Canada where we have more government not less. Where we have more international cooperation not less. Where we have more "collectivism", more education, more consumer protections, more environmental regulation, more investment into research.
And yes we also have rights too, but they're not these absolute mathematical truths and it doesn't mean we should let a bunch of people skirt fiscal regulation by raising a bunch of money anonymously with ICOs.
1. Libertarianism sweeps negative externalities under the rug. Air quality, noise pollution, the costs to society when an elderly person goes bankrupt. The counter arguments are thin. If you don't ban building in a flood plain, people will build in the flood plain. Then the flood will happen and we'll all be worse off.
2. Libertarianism is inefficient because it demands that people become experts in a wide, wide array of topics in order to be healthy and financially secure. Sometimes becoming an expert in a topic is to experience it. For example, I used to be addicted to nicotine. It's one thing to explain with words how addictive it is, it's another to actually be addicted. By introducing a bit of a nanny state we can use laws and taxes as a kind of cross generational memory and save people from having to learn some of the lessons we had to learn.
3. Libertarianism doesn't address the concept of power. It pits the whole world through the lens of rights when there are other concerns like foreign citizens owning portions of companies critical to our national security or owning large portions of our media.
4. Libertarianism underestimates how much work the state puts towards fighting international crime. We use the financial system to track where mafias hide money and how they organize their money laundering schemes.
The problem with leaving libertarianism is that after years of thinking about everything through the lens of rights and the individual one is left with the question "well, what matters then?" and the answer is difficult, but here is my best shot:
The world is one of consequence. So when think about policies we should be concerned with our ends, but we should choose our ends as if we didn't know who we were in the world beforehand.
So my answer is roughly "consequentialism tempered by individual / human rights".
You don't get to buy into Uber's round because they aren't a public company. If they become a public company they have to open their books. Why? Because widespread fraud happened before this and it wasn't just to little old grandma. Sorry about the violation of your rights, but if I didn't know who I would be beforehand, this is what I think would lead to the best average outcome.
As for the middle class not being able to invest in the best companies, I agree with you that we should change some of our regulations. I agree that the rich are getting richer because not enough companies are going public. Let's fix the regulations that empower investment banks at the expense of the entrepreneurs and potential investors, and while we're at it let's raise taxes on the super rich and close their loopholes.
But at the same time let's acknowledge something else: The middle class and the poor have it best in countries like Sweden or Switzerland or Canada where we have more government not less. Where we have more international cooperation not less. Where we have more "collectivism", more education, more consumer protections, more environmental regulation, more investment into research.
And yes we also have rights too, but they're not these absolute mathematical truths and it doesn't mean we should let a bunch of people skirt fiscal regulation by raising a bunch of money anonymously with ICOs.
It's interesting that you give Switzerland as an example since many would regard it as the most libertarian country today. Could you imagine this [2] happening in the US?
Public spending to GDP ratio [1]:
No 1 is a good argument against libertarianism. A counter-argument is that more libertarian-style decentralized decision-making would mitigate negative externalities and the "common good tragedy". Research suggests [3] that negative externalities can be managed in smaller communities; smaller government also makes it harder for parasitic organisations to suck out money. Pollution can also be taken care of in the court system rather than regulation.
Before advancing an "how would X work?" argument, you should consider whether X really works better in other systems. Last time I checked, there was a ton of flooded houses in Houston, plenty of people smoke, and there is quite a bit of organized crime (a popular one in Sweden is "assistance compensation" paid out by the government to people who take care of sick relatives at home. Who would ever think about abusing it?? Surely not the mafia and IS). No-one is claiming that liberty will produce a perfect world, but that it's the morally right thing. As a bonus it would also likely produce better outcomes (on average) than what we have today.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_spending#As_a_perce...
[2]: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jul/18/switzerland-pu...
[3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elinor_Ostrom
Public spending to GDP ratio [1]:
Sweden 51
US 42
Canada 42
Switzerland 34
No 1 is a good argument against libertarianism. A counter-argument is that more libertarian-style decentralized decision-making would mitigate negative externalities and the "common good tragedy". Research suggests [3] that negative externalities can be managed in smaller communities; smaller government also makes it harder for parasitic organisations to suck out money. Pollution can also be taken care of in the court system rather than regulation.
Before advancing an "how would X work?" argument, you should consider whether X really works better in other systems. Last time I checked, there was a ton of flooded houses in Houston, plenty of people smoke, and there is quite a bit of organized crime (a popular one in Sweden is "assistance compensation" paid out by the government to people who take care of sick relatives at home. Who would ever think about abusing it?? Surely not the mafia and IS). No-one is claiming that liberty will produce a perfect world, but that it's the morally right thing. As a bonus it would also likely produce better outcomes (on average) than what we have today.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_spending#As_a_perce...
[2]: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jul/18/switzerland-pu...
[3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elinor_Ostrom
The US isn't a libertarian country, and neither is Switzerland, and public spending to GDP doesn't mean anything within the context of what I was saying because it doesn't take into account what the funds were spent on.
The US overspends on its military and mismanages its spending on healthcare. If Sweden's welfare / education / state has collapsed since I lasted checked it out, I'll update my views, but I certainly haven't seen rising illiteracy or poverty like we see in the US.
The US overspends on its military and mismanages its spending on healthcare. If Sweden's welfare / education / state has collapsed since I lasted checked it out, I'll update my views, but I certainly haven't seen rising illiteracy or poverty like we see in the US.
I don't understand why you're talking about Uber and regulations, when this is China we're talking about. You seem to be on a completely different subject, because the article says nothing about law, and says its a decision by China's Central Bank.
"Ultimately this stuff keeps grandmas poor."
Again, completely off topic to the post. But, when you talk about 'regulations', you should be making yourself clear, because you're covering massive territory and calling it all 'bad' with that statement, which is certainly not true.
"Ultimately this stuff keeps grandmas poor."
Again, completely off topic to the post. But, when you talk about 'regulations', you should be making yourself clear, because you're covering massive territory and calling it all 'bad' with that statement, which is certainly not true.
Name one ICO that is a legitimate business.
most ICOs are done by startups that haven't built their businesses yet - that's why they are raising money. Many of them seem like legitimate businesses that could fail but also could succeed.
So you can't name a single legitimate business that's doing an ico?
filecoin. storj. factom, ripple, omega one. golem, iconomi
there are tons of them.
Filecoin? Consider Bit Torrent seeding/bandwidth. It is too cheap to count for at least 10 years. Even tit-for-tat is no longer necessary since LEDBAT was rolled out (circa 2010).
The stuff they are going to count "on the blockchain" is too cheap to count! Well, and blockchain transactions are kind of expensive and slow. See the problem?
The stuff they are going to count "on the blockchain" is too cheap to count! Well, and blockchain transactions are kind of expensive and slow. See the problem?
the question was to name legitimate businesses doing ICOs. filecoin is certainly legitimate. You are talking about how their tech might fail and how their business might not work. that's great, and you could very well be correct, but that's not what we are discussing here
I am rather certain that guys consumed less-legal substances while drafting their whitepapers. That is my top reason not to consider their business "legitimate".
You didn't make a point, sorry.
ok, to those who didn't get my point.
Everyone is certainly entitled to make up their own definition of "legitimate". However, as long as we are all speaking English, we can agree on what legitimate means. And it means the following:
le·git·i·mate adjective adjective: legitimate ləˈjidəmət/ 1. conforming to the law or to rules. "his claims to legitimate authority"
so, it's great to have a learned opinion on filecoin's tech, but its irrelevant to the discussion of whether filecoin is a legitimate business
le·git·i·mate adjective adjective: legitimate ləˈjidəmət/ 1. conforming to the law or to rules. "his claims to legitimate authority"
so, it's great to have a learned opinion on filecoin's tech, but its irrelevant to the discussion of whether filecoin is a legitimate business
Those companies have products available that consumers pay real money for?
Some of them do, like factom. others are raising money through the ICO to build those products. Is that a bad thing ?
Most seed rounds are not Uber.
What about Quirky, Homejoy, Zirtual, Secret, Grooveshark, Rdio, Leap, Theranos, Sprig, Beepi, ...
What about Quirky, Homejoy, Zirtual, Secret, Grooveshark, Rdio, Leap, Theranos, Sprig, Beepi, ...
When did you have the opportunity to invest in Uber or AirBnB? I really don't think at any point of time were random accredited investors with 10k able to invest in Uber...
Gambling is also very illegal in china.
Knowing about Uber isn't enough, you need access to their seed round which is on a selective basis
[deleted]
In addition to that book you mentioned, check out “Scandal of Money” by George Gilder (quick read) covering the concept of these sort of regulations as well as the nature of sound money vs extreme “financialism” that has replaced it over the last few decades in developed economies... along with increased regulation essentially separating main street from Wall Street / Silicon Valley.
He describes how a return to sound money through Bitcoin and perhaps a new gold standard, as well as reducing these sorts of regulations you describe would enable a renewed prosperity of the middle class.. for a whole host of reasons worth reading in the book.
He describes how a return to sound money through Bitcoin and perhaps a new gold standard, as well as reducing these sorts of regulations you describe would enable a renewed prosperity of the middle class.. for a whole host of reasons worth reading in the book.
Did they do this to "protect" people, or for more control?
Almost any ban can be said to be done to protect people.
Cant have them reading some books for their own good!
Almost any ban can be said to be done to protect people.
Cant have them reading some books for their own good!
Nobody care of your rights, if you think you deserve it you have to fight for it. What concrete action have you take to fight it ?
I don't understand. To invest in Uber seed round you had to be an accredited investor. That's a pretty low bar in the US. But now, crowdfunding rules have removed this requirement for those raising less than 5 million.
I need to say that you have some great points ;) It's really exciting to read opinion so close to my heart.
Currently, I work at Neufund where we want to do exactly what you described: open access to broad range of investment opportunities for everyone by using cryptocurrencies. Check it out! https://neufund.org/
Currently, I work at Neufund where we want to do exactly what you described: open access to broad range of investment opportunities for everyone by using cryptocurrencies. Check it out! https://neufund.org/
The law you're referring to is more about marketing investments.
You're still free to give your friend 10k for a startup.
It's to prevent boiler room style organizations that quite effectively convince people without much information that an investment is sound when it's not.
You're still free to give your friend 10k for a startup.
It's to prevent boiler room style organizations that quite effectively convince people without much information that an investment is sound when it's not.
You're still free to give your friend 10k for a startup.
This is incorrect. Some unaccredited investments are allowed, and above certain thresholds it just triggers onerous reporting requirements. It is not illegal to make unaccredited investments. It is illegal to market/promote to unaccredited investors however.
What? I can't take 10K from my parents/friends and give them equity?
It's highly limited. If you have 300 friends you can't take $10k from each, unless they are accredited.
This is why syndicates exist. Not a problem at all. Edit: not the only reason why they exist :) but a major one. To explain a bit more: syndicates allow you to consolidate multiple investors (not necessarily acredited) in an investment vehicle that then owns a chunk of stock in the company.
The thing is these are a huge haven for money laundering which is probably the best explanation for the amounts raised.
rothbardrand(3)
It ultimately comes down to what flavour of politics you subscribe to. The key question is whether you think that the public should be protected against the abuses of the free market, or if the free market should be a complete free-for-all. For example, Dodd-Frank solved a concrete problem, and there have been countless studies that show it it responsible for stabilizing the US economy.
But ultimately, wanting to die on the ICO hill is a bit odd. I thought it was fairly clear (at least, it was fairly clear to me) that the whole "industry" is mostly powered by hype -- which leads to people being swindled out of their money. Wanting to protect a completely unregulated industry's ability to fool people into wasting their money doesn't seem like a sane or sustainable position (that's how economic crashes happen).
> Keeping me out of Uber's seed round is a violation of my rights.
First of all, this is a story about China. Second of all, it's a story about ICOs and not non-ICO startups. Third of all, is it also a violation of your rights to not be able to fund companies in countries that are at war with your country (which I assume is the US)? Is it a violation of your rights to not be able to fund illegal activity? I'm just trying to gauge at which point does your view on "the inalienable right to invest in anything" stop short? I would expect that China is trying to come to a decision about whether ICOs should be made illegal or more regulated.
But ultimately, wanting to die on the ICO hill is a bit odd. I thought it was fairly clear (at least, it was fairly clear to me) that the whole "industry" is mostly powered by hype -- which leads to people being swindled out of their money. Wanting to protect a completely unregulated industry's ability to fool people into wasting their money doesn't seem like a sane or sustainable position (that's how economic crashes happen).
> Keeping me out of Uber's seed round is a violation of my rights.
First of all, this is a story about China. Second of all, it's a story about ICOs and not non-ICO startups. Third of all, is it also a violation of your rights to not be able to fund companies in countries that are at war with your country (which I assume is the US)? Is it a violation of your rights to not be able to fund illegal activity? I'm just trying to gauge at which point does your view on "the inalienable right to invest in anything" stop short? I would expect that China is trying to come to a decision about whether ICOs should be made illegal or more regulated.
Those "studies" are self serving. That is the political propaganda keeping you feeling safe in having your rights violated. This isn't a question of flavor of politics- but fundamental rights. Do you have freedom of association or not?
Secondly, you think its "fairly clear to [you]" that these ICOs are scams. I am sure some are, but I know for a fact that many are not. I am quite capable of telling the difference (as a blockchain engineer.)
The presumption that every startup failing is "people being swindled out of their money" is very odd one for a discussion forum run by y-combinator.
Is y-combinator being swindled when an investment fails?
And you're still sidestepping the point:
It's my right to apply my own discernment to what are good and what are bad investments. Not people who don't know the difference between SHA1 and SHA2.
Secondly, you think its "fairly clear to [you]" that these ICOs are scams. I am sure some are, but I know for a fact that many are not. I am quite capable of telling the difference (as a blockchain engineer.)
The presumption that every startup failing is "people being swindled out of their money" is very odd one for a discussion forum run by y-combinator.
Is y-combinator being swindled when an investment fails?
And you're still sidestepping the point:
It's my right to apply my own discernment to what are good and what are bad investments. Not people who don't know the difference between SHA1 and SHA2.
Where do your "fundamental rights" come from? Brought down on stone tablets? I mean, I like individual freedoms as much as the next person, but you can't just slap "fundamental" in front of something and then declare the debate over. The other side can just reply that societies have a fundamental right to protect themselves from societal harms at the expense of individuals.
People disagree about what rights people have and what rights governments have. Simply prefixing the word rights with a phrase like "innate," "fundamental," or "inalienable" to make it seem beyond debate is just sophistry.
People disagree about what rights people have and what rights governments have. Simply prefixing the word rights with a phrase like "innate," "fundamental," or "inalienable" to make it seem beyond debate is just sophistry.
> It's my right to apply my own discernment to what are good and what are bad investments.
Let's say, hypothetically, that someone is not as good as you at stock picking, and they make extremely bad investment choices, added and abetted by an army of "wolves of wall street" all selling penny stocks that "are guaranteed to go big".
Once they arrive at their 0% ROI at retirement stage, don't they rely then on a government-provided safety net for various survival needs? Shouldn't the government then have a say, or at least some interest, in decreasing the probability of such extremely bad choices?
Let's say, hypothetically, that someone is not as good as you at stock picking, and they make extremely bad investment choices, added and abetted by an army of "wolves of wall street" all selling penny stocks that "are guaranteed to go big".
Once they arrive at their 0% ROI at retirement stage, don't they rely then on a government-provided safety net for various survival needs? Shouldn't the government then have a say, or at least some interest, in decreasing the probability of such extremely bad choices?
lol a radical libertarian I see you are. You have every right to trust your own ideas, right, but calling every "studies" as self-serving is a bit too far. I'd say the right-wing studies and arguments for a completely free market are just as likely, if not more likely, to be totally self-serving and lacking in objective truths.
> Secondly, you think its "fairly clear to [you]" that these ICOs are scams. I am sure some are, but I know for a fact that many are not. I am quite capable of telling the difference (as a blockchain engineer.)
The average Joe and Jane on Instagram/Twitter/FB can simply not tell if it's a scam or not what e.g. Paris Hilton is advertising.
Heck, I'm a sw dev too - and I have a hard time figuring out why some of the ICOs need their own token at all. Simple offer what you sell (e.g. legal services for a certain market) directly and let them pay as they wish. Absolutely no need for a blockchain to achieve things.
The average Joe and Jane on Instagram/Twitter/FB can simply not tell if it's a scam or not what e.g. Paris Hilton is advertising.
Heck, I'm a sw dev too - and I have a hard time figuring out why some of the ICOs need their own token at all. Simple offer what you sell (e.g. legal services for a certain market) directly and let them pay as they wish. Absolutely no need for a blockchain to achieve things.
Exactly. Being a blockchain engineer may allow you to judge their code. But the business behind it is a different matter altogether.
> Those "studies" are self serving. That is the political propaganda keeping you feeling safe in having your rights violated.
Ah, so you're the only source of truth that I can trust in this discussion, since no study can be trusted? Awesome.
Can you answer my question about at which point do you think "freedom to invest in an enterprise" should not be allowed? I'll quote my question again:
> Third of all, is it also a violation of your rights to not be able to fund companies in countries that are at war with your country (which I assume is the US)? Is it a violation of your rights to not be able to fund illegal activity? I'm just trying to gauge at which point does your view on "the inalienable right to invest in anything" stop short?
Ah, so you're the only source of truth that I can trust in this discussion, since no study can be trusted? Awesome.
Can you answer my question about at which point do you think "freedom to invest in an enterprise" should not be allowed? I'll quote my question again:
> Third of all, is it also a violation of your rights to not be able to fund companies in countries that are at war with your country (which I assume is the US)? Is it a violation of your rights to not be able to fund illegal activity? I'm just trying to gauge at which point does your view on "the inalienable right to invest in anything" stop short?
One of your key premises, that investing in startups is a key / good path to getting rich, is flawed. Investing in startups is notoriously NOT that stable of an investment vehicle. If you're a small-scale enough investor to not meet accreditation rules, why would you WANT to throw 10k at a startup?
You speak in terms of rights and that's one debate to have. But evaluating the material harm in this situation, the notion that this denies upward economic mobility in a significant way seems overstated.
You speak in terms of rights and that's one debate to have. But evaluating the material harm in this situation, the notion that this denies upward economic mobility in a significant way seems overstated.
"One of your key premises, that investing in startups is a key / good path to getting rich, is flawed" - straw man argument
His key premise is that freedom of association extends to seed investments. As the other poster said you have set up a straw man argument here.
Time will tell whether the system is more or less robust with Dodd Frank. Also the previous system seemed robust until the crash happened. An argument could be made that more legislation and onerous regulation pushes smaller actors out of the game. Then you end up with a bunch of too-big-to-fail corporations that take the whole system down if they fail. Regulatory capture is also a major issue with too big entities.
Reading tip: Antifragile by Nassim Nicholas Taleb
Reading tip: Antifragile by Nassim Nicholas Taleb
> It ultimately comes down to what flavour of politics you subscribe to
If you were to tell any of your progressive friends about Reg-D, but framed it as written by "the 1%" - they'll naturally think the law is unjust and shouldn't exist.
I think this has less to do with political flavor and more to do with critical thinking skills. Unless Reg-D also bans gambling at Vegas and throwing your money down a well - then it comes up short of it's protectionist goals. But it definitely succeeds in protecting qualified investors from "unqualified" investors.
If you were to tell any of your progressive friends about Reg-D, but framed it as written by "the 1%" - they'll naturally think the law is unjust and shouldn't exist.
I think this has less to do with political flavor and more to do with critical thinking skills. Unless Reg-D also bans gambling at Vegas and throwing your money down a well - then it comes up short of it's protectionist goals. But it definitely succeeds in protecting qualified investors from "unqualified" investors.
> If you were to tell any of your progressive friends about Reg-D, but framed it as written by "the 1%" - they'll naturally think the law is unjust and shouldn't exist.
I agree that there is a lot of collectivism in politics, and that "the 1%" rallying cries are mostly a way of controlling a group of people into opposing things they are uninformed about. So discussing anything as being written by "the 1%" is never going to lead to useful discourse. But I don't see why any of that matters.
Also "any of [my] progressive friends"? I don't understand why you're being hostile. I don't really associate with people based on their politics, it makes it too easy to have an echo chamber (or a shouting match). Not to mention that wasn't the point of my comment, it was to ask GGP to expand on their views.
> I think this has less to do with political flavor and more to do with critical thinking skills.
Then why mention (what you assume are) my politics at all?
> Unless Reg-D also bans gambling at Vegas and throwing your money down a well - then it comes up short of it's protectionist goals.
I think gambling should be better regulated, and I think that defrauding people to "throw money down a well" shouldn't be legal. I don't care if you, of your own volition, decide to throw your money down a well (though it actually does cost your country money to re-print said currency). What I do care about is someone trying to defraud you. But this is a complete straw-man, securities laws are about fraud not about being stupid with your money.
I'm not authoritarian, but pretending like regulation over speculative investments are not going to help any unexperienced investors is just ridiculous.
I agree that there is a lot of collectivism in politics, and that "the 1%" rallying cries are mostly a way of controlling a group of people into opposing things they are uninformed about. So discussing anything as being written by "the 1%" is never going to lead to useful discourse. But I don't see why any of that matters.
Also "any of [my] progressive friends"? I don't understand why you're being hostile. I don't really associate with people based on their politics, it makes it too easy to have an echo chamber (or a shouting match). Not to mention that wasn't the point of my comment, it was to ask GGP to expand on their views.
> I think this has less to do with political flavor and more to do with critical thinking skills.
Then why mention (what you assume are) my politics at all?
> Unless Reg-D also bans gambling at Vegas and throwing your money down a well - then it comes up short of it's protectionist goals.
I think gambling should be better regulated, and I think that defrauding people to "throw money down a well" shouldn't be legal. I don't care if you, of your own volition, decide to throw your money down a well (though it actually does cost your country money to re-print said currency). What I do care about is someone trying to defraud you. But this is a complete straw-man, securities laws are about fraud not about being stupid with your money.
I'm not authoritarian, but pretending like regulation over speculative investments are not going to help any unexperienced investors is just ridiculous.
I think the issue with these regulations is that they use net worth as a proxy for an investor's qualifications. I'm not convinced that this is a good proxy.
Any grandma or grandpa who's been putting a decent amount from each paycheck into US equities for 50 years is going to be very wealthy today - but is probably not truly a "sophisticated investor". They're a prime target to get ripped off.
By contrast, a bright young software engineer a few years ago who picked up early on Airbnb or Uber could potentially be a "sophisticated investor", but would be excluded because of his or her net worth.
I really am not sure what an ideal proxy would be. I used "grandma/grandpa" and "bright young software engineer" in my example, but I don't think age or occupation would be good proxies either. Perhaps some sort of investor qualification exam?
Regardless, the completely-unregulated ICO market is a separate issue from private equity more generally. We should be careful conflating the two.
Any grandma or grandpa who's been putting a decent amount from each paycheck into US equities for 50 years is going to be very wealthy today - but is probably not truly a "sophisticated investor". They're a prime target to get ripped off.
By contrast, a bright young software engineer a few years ago who picked up early on Airbnb or Uber could potentially be a "sophisticated investor", but would be excluded because of his or her net worth.
I really am not sure what an ideal proxy would be. I used "grandma/grandpa" and "bright young software engineer" in my example, but I don't think age or occupation would be good proxies either. Perhaps some sort of investor qualification exam?
Regardless, the completely-unregulated ICO market is a separate issue from private equity more generally. We should be careful conflating the two.
It isn't the public, it's the public not in the 1%.
It ... sounds like you wouldn't have any trouble getting accredited?
Very good point.
It sounds like "Why are there laws that prevent fools from giving their money to me?"
The more replies I read, the more I'm convinced these regulations are working exactly as intended: to protect the innocent from free-for-all sociopaths.
It sounds like "Why are there laws that prevent fools from giving their money to me?"
The more replies I read, the more I'm convinced these regulations are working exactly as intended: to protect the innocent from free-for-all sociopaths.
Why does it sound like that to you? I've seen no evidence that the majority in this thread arguing against the ban have revealed that scamming people out of their money is their ultimate motivation. Assuming bad faith based on cartoonish ideological stereotypes is not fair.
It's not about money, it's about the freedom to associate with a group that I am aligned with.
What do you think the Chinese government has to gain from these regulations? Protection of the consumer? This is China we're talking about here.
What do you think the Chinese government has to gain from these regulations? Protection of the consumer? This is China we're talking about here.
Lets assume I am accredited.
This isn't about me getting mine.
This is about the fact that the regulations deny you a chance to join me.
This isn't about me getting mine.
This is about the fact that the regulations deny you a chance to join me.
they do not. crowdfunding from non accredited investors is already allowed.
http://www.investopedia.com/articles/entrepreneurship-small-...
http://www.investopedia.com/articles/entrepreneurship-small-...
The problem is that companies doing ICOs aren't Uber.
Peek your head into /r/ethtrader. You will find people putting their retirement savings, mortgaging houses, etc and these people aren't technically savvy and can be easily taken for a ride. While you might have good apples, there are going to be tons of bad apples, people just coming with a white paper and asking for millions of dollars. Coming back to your question, the rich don't need protection as its ok to lose money when you are rich. The 'not rich' need protection as if they lose all their savings, it will seriously harm their lives.
Peek your head into /r/ethtrader. You will find people putting their retirement savings, mortgaging houses, etc and these people aren't technically savvy and can be easily taken for a ride. While you might have good apples, there are going to be tons of bad apples, people just coming with a white paper and asking for millions of dollars. Coming back to your question, the rich don't need protection as its ok to lose money when you are rich. The 'not rich' need protection as if they lose all their savings, it will seriously harm their lives.
That's your presumption. You think they aren't technically savvy. Hell, I think some of them aren't myself, but it's not my right, and it's not your right, to say what they can or cannot do with their property.
And a lot of those non-"savvy" people have outperformed me, for instance by buying ETH at the ICO.
You guys keep presuming that the only choice is "people losing all their money" and that these regulations stop that.
The reality is, these regulations keep the poor people poor, not keep them from losing all their money.
As I have pointed out, you can go to Las Vegas and lose all your savings in a weekend.
That dog don't hunt.
And a lot of those non-"savvy" people have outperformed me, for instance by buying ETH at the ICO.
You guys keep presuming that the only choice is "people losing all their money" and that these regulations stop that.
The reality is, these regulations keep the poor people poor, not keep them from losing all their money.
As I have pointed out, you can go to Las Vegas and lose all your savings in a weekend.
That dog don't hunt.
It boils down if you are willing to accept that stupid people are going to pay for their stupidity (on very real and life-altering consequences) or if they should be shielded from it.
Personally I belong to the side where I'm willing to give up some personal freedoms for a better collective life, that includes saving very stupid people from very stupid decisions that might affect the rest of their lives (and their families').
Personally I belong to the side where I'm willing to give up some personal freedoms for a better collective life, that includes saving very stupid people from very stupid decisions that might affect the rest of their lives (and their families').
His point is that the government not only doesn't ban many forms of stupid decisions, but actively encourages ones that provide significant revenue, particularly in the gambling and consumer spending spheres.
"Tu quoque" is actually a pretty useful heuristic for analyzing whether a party's stated goals for a policy align with its actual ones.
"Tu quoque" is actually a pretty useful heuristic for analyzing whether a party's stated goals for a policy align with its actual ones.
Regulation is only on the surface about investor protection. The main driver is usually taxation (only what's regulated can be taxed). If these investment schemes become too liquid allowing anyone to invest in anything in large sums, tax evasion and tax fraud become even harder for authorities to track (especially since there's no legal framework for ICOs - and creating those takes time). As many others have pointed out, there's no legislation that will hold you back investing in the companies behind these ICOs in one way or another. Just talk to the founders, ask them to sell you some shares and you're good to go. But then there's a well established track record when you buy and transfer shares (for example in the books of the company that sold you the shares). The same is not (yet) true for ICOs.
This is an excellent argument that the crime of fraud does not exist.
you assume that 1) most people are rational and 2) irrational behaviors of others costs you and everyone else nothing (in dollars or utility).
Maybe I'm cold-hearted but I believe in something called "personal responsibility." They chose to throw their money into something they don't understand, now they get the consequences of that decision. You can be sure they'd be all about accepting the consequences of their decision if it panned out the other way and they made a fortune. I feel zero sympathy.
you too can be in one of those situations. Humans aren't at their rational best all the times.
Keep trying and trying, It wont work. By that's none of my business
This was a needed move. Too many scamcoins are appearing and selling their overpriced offerings. It's like Kickstarter, but for larger sums of money and less accountability if things don't materialise. We are heading for a pretty serious ICO bubble if ICO's can continue to operate like they are and I can only hope that the USA follows suit next.
The crypto markets right now are in a free fall as a result of the panic. This is a ban on ICO's, not a ban on cryptocurrency. People don't realise how instrumental China is in the crypto world, quite crazy. I am taking this opportunity to buy up promising alt coins like TenX ($pay) which are all incredibly unvervalued right now as a result of the drop.
As we learned with Bitcoin, panic is temporary and eventually things will bounce back. We are entering a brave new world with cryptocoins as they reach the mainstream.
The crypto markets right now are in a free fall as a result of the panic. This is a ban on ICO's, not a ban on cryptocurrency. People don't realise how instrumental China is in the crypto world, quite crazy. I am taking this opportunity to buy up promising alt coins like TenX ($pay) which are all incredibly unvervalued right now as a result of the drop.
As we learned with Bitcoin, panic is temporary and eventually things will bounce back. We are entering a brave new world with cryptocoins as they reach the mainstream.
Here's the thing though, I did not invest in the Ethereum ICO because I considered it a scam coin.
It's really easy to just say all these ICOs are scams but we have not seen many outright scams.
I have seen a lot of very young enthusiastic teams promising things that it would be very hard for them to deliver on.
And I imagine every Silicon Valley VC can see the same thing about their pitches.
How do you know which are scams and which aren't? There's no objective measure.
So basically this is banning the middle class from investing in the next massive technology cycle.
Reserving it once again only for VCs and accredited investors. Keeping the little guy out and making the rich richer.
It's really easy to just say all these ICOs are scams but we have not seen many outright scams.
I have seen a lot of very young enthusiastic teams promising things that it would be very hard for them to deliver on.
And I imagine every Silicon Valley VC can see the same thing about their pitches.
How do you know which are scams and which aren't? There's no objective measure.
So basically this is banning the middle class from investing in the next massive technology cycle.
Reserving it once again only for VCs and accredited investors. Keeping the little guy out and making the rich richer.
> This was a needed move.
> We are entering a brave new world with cryptocoins as they reach the mainstream.
You can't have both. decide
> We are entering a brave new world with cryptocoins as they reach the mainstream.
You can't have both. decide
I'm confused. They both relate to each other, don't they? For crypto to reach and be accepted by the mainstream, people need to know that everything is being done to prevent people from being scammed. It's surprisingly easy to fork an existing cryptocurrency and create your own. Anyone could create a new coin in a couple of hours, most of the time spent on the marketing site. For crypto to be accepted beyond speculators and Twitter investors, there needs to be protections in place, just like investing in the stock market is regulated somewhat.
All that and more is provided by conventional physical and digital money.
What about all those legitimate startups that raised money from ICO's???
Here on Hacker News we had a staunch defender of ICO's, who was saying "ICO's of some form are unquestionably the future of raising capital for most tech companies up to a certain size".
In response to that wide claim, I asked the following question which I'll quote part of: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15121111
>May I ask what the largest/most successful "traditional" tech company that used an ICO is? By "traditional" I mean that their tech has nothing to do with blockchains and they could have also just raised money on angellist, and today are just a normal tech company shipping some kind of a product, like a hoverboard.
Here was their response which I'll quote: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15121451
>This is early days, very early days. Give it a few years, and people won't bat an eye at raising capital via the blockchain. It's just more efficient and easier. I mean, if you like having to travel around, having tons of meetings and discussions, hoping your lead investor doesn't pull out and fuck up the whole round, by all means keep supporting the current system. It just is going to change, massively, in the coming years. There will be some sort of place for traditional capital but blockchain capital raising will hit every industry.
If you think about it, that response to my question really says it all.
(Upon my folowup, they did name two software companies.)
Here on Hacker News we had a staunch defender of ICO's, who was saying "ICO's of some form are unquestionably the future of raising capital for most tech companies up to a certain size".
In response to that wide claim, I asked the following question which I'll quote part of: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15121111
>May I ask what the largest/most successful "traditional" tech company that used an ICO is? By "traditional" I mean that their tech has nothing to do with blockchains and they could have also just raised money on angellist, and today are just a normal tech company shipping some kind of a product, like a hoverboard.
Here was their response which I'll quote: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15121451
>This is early days, very early days. Give it a few years, and people won't bat an eye at raising capital via the blockchain. It's just more efficient and easier. I mean, if you like having to travel around, having tons of meetings and discussions, hoping your lead investor doesn't pull out and fuck up the whole round, by all means keep supporting the current system. It just is going to change, massively, in the coming years. There will be some sort of place for traditional capital but blockchain capital raising will hit every industry.
If you think about it, that response to my question really says it all.
(Upon my folowup, they did name two software companies.)
I looked at that webpage. About halfway down the page there is a "Latest Media Coverage" section: http://imgur.com/a/pCXCm
I tried to click on the Forbes, TechCrunch, recode, and Adweek links, but actually they're not links; that section is empty. The empty section is included to imply that there has been media coverage by these sources (or any other ones), but it is just an inactive placeholder that uses their greyed-out logos without permission to imply some kind of coverage. Clicking anywhere in that empty section does nothing.
Why does the page include an empty "latest media coverage" section that is completely empty (but includes famous news brand logos)? You and I both know why - it's obvious.
That might be fine for companies that are bootstrapping their own future: "imagine if we had something here." But this is why I didn't ask about such companies, but instead about companies that already have done that bootstrapping.
A lot of money has traded hands in ICO's. Has a single traditional tech startup that is shipping some kind of real product (hoverboard, whatever) totally unrelated to blockchain, been built as a result?
I tried to click on the Forbes, TechCrunch, recode, and Adweek links, but actually they're not links; that section is empty. The empty section is included to imply that there has been media coverage by these sources (or any other ones), but it is just an inactive placeholder that uses their greyed-out logos without permission to imply some kind of coverage. Clicking anywhere in that empty section does nothing.
Why does the page include an empty "latest media coverage" section that is completely empty (but includes famous news brand logos)? You and I both know why - it's obvious.
That might be fine for companies that are bootstrapping their own future: "imagine if we had something here." But this is why I didn't ask about such companies, but instead about companies that already have done that bootstrapping.
A lot of money has traded hands in ICO's. Has a single traditional tech startup that is shipping some kind of real product (hoverboard, whatever) totally unrelated to blockchain, been built as a result?
But wait, central banking is itself a scam! It's the only entity that doesn't have to balance its books.
Clearly a very bad move for China.
I'm not surprised, even some basic analysis on the ICOs such as Civic raise a lot of alarm bells.
Will be very interested to see in the next couple of years how many of these projects still exist.
Will be very interested to see in the next couple of years how many of these projects still exist.
Time to buy.
I believe prices are inflated because of ICOs. People are buying tokens counting on ICO hype to increase their value so they can flip their initial invested principal with 2x/3x/4x return.
Without ICOs this speculative technique will not be possible so we will see how many people are actually interested in buying these worthless tokens because they believe in their "features", rather than speculate on their price.
I wonder though if the speculation will just move from China to other countries though and the bubble will continue until there is more action by regulators around the world against this.