Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by fowlerpower 3216 days ago
Look the ICO space is way too young for all the judgment people are passing on here. The SEC clearly wants to let this play out. No one has gone to jail yet.

The government has already started to relax the ability for non accredited investors to invest in startups and that was under the last administration. These rules are recent but they are there, they are very limited though and ICOs blow the top off of those rules.

ICOs are forcing the SECs hand and I think it show cases the interest that exist in the public to get into these early stage startups. I won't be surprised if the rules are relaxed even further to legalize these types of coins even if they are considered securities, especially under this administration.

Everyone is saying that you are limiting yourself by offering an ICO. You are giving away zero equity for the promise that your product and service will offer these people something in most cases, that is just like a kickstarter. Furthermore, nothing stops you from raising money after the ICO.

Anyway, this is a fantastic new vehicle for startups and I believe it will absolutely change the game. The VCs are a little mad because they are being shut out of the best rounds, where they would normally get the most equity.

At the end of the day what matters most is if startups can start get funding and hire people and add value to the economy. That is what the SEC has to balance with the public interest on the other end.

2 comments

You say this, but by most objective measures ICOs look like a mechanism to provide most of the benefits of raising capital (and then some) with none of the oversight or constraints.

ICOs are not like a kickstarter for the same reason the SEC cares about them: as a buyer of tokens your capital can arguably be seen as an investment which is expected to generate a capital return based on a market clearing price determined by the value attributed to a going concern. Also if we are being honest here, the high dollar amounts and high volatility we are seeing also matter greatly in terms of guessing if the SEC is going to expend resources on this. Once a few of these crater and hundreds of millions of dollars are lost I'd expect regulatory intervention to happen rapidly.

And 2008, 1999, and 1929 called and take issue with your claim that the most important thing for the SEC (and all of us) to consider is startup funding and not the public interest. The exposure of individual investor capital to undisclosed risk, due to a lack of prospectus, legally required accounting practices, financial statements, etc, can cause major negative effects on all of us if and when capital is mis-allocated, particularly if it is tied to derivatives, is overleveraged, or there are other potential market contagions due to price correlations to similar assets, etc.

When you consider the role of the SEC and the history of speculative bubbles, run an ICO without strong legal protections, based on precedent, at your own peril, I say.

ICOs are forcing the SECs hand and I think it show cases the interest that exist in the public to get into these early stage startups.

Ponzi schemes are forcing the SEC's hand, and I think it showcases the interest that exists in the public to get into these early stage pyramid schemes.

The fact that the public is interested in something doesn't make the SEC say "oh, ok, that's fine then". The SEC's job isn't to get out of the way of the public. The SEC's job is to get in the public's way, in order to protect the public from scams -- which means the more public interest there is in something, the closer the SEC will be looking at it.

I agree with you that the SEC is there to protect the public.

You are incorrectly saying that ICOs are a Ponzi scheme. When they are in fact too new to be labeled as anything. If they were in fact all Ponzi Schemes then people would already be in jail.

Secondly the SEC is there to balance both sides of the equation. Companies interests and the public dumping money into scams.

> If they were in fact all Ponzi Schemes then people would already be in jail.

Well it was the SEC that oddly of all the ICOs published an opinion on the DAO, the one ICO that was hard forked (erased from existence). Though if the DAO wasn't erased, based on the SEC opinion it is fair to say they would have brought a case right? I mean its not exactly fair for them to conclude the DAO was an illegal sale of securities and then not enforce the law.

Separately, we have instances of the SEC contacting ICOs and informing them they are in violation of the law and the ICO investments being returned to investors...so I think the SEC has fully weighed both sides of the equation.

Certainly the comment you are responding to did not say ICOs are ponzi schemes, they just simply applied your ICO logic to another situation, but truthfully many ICOs will turn out to be ponzi schemes and outright fraud, and likely the DAO was neither (surely it would be fraud if they were the hacker) but they still were likely violating securities laws.

The SEC isn't there to protect the public. It is there to make sure the public will continue to trust the markets. Keep in mind that the whole game is powered by trust, if that trust gets damaged too much everything will collapse.
I didn't mean to imply that ICOs were Ponzi schemes. I was just trying to draw an analogy to explain why "the public wants this" isn't an argument which is liable to convince the SEC to back off.