[KGIII]

At first, I thought you might be hyperbolic or had fallen for some sort of propaganda (for lack of a better term). I don't know much about ICOs and I know/knew less about Paragon.

I figured I'd check and just let you be, figuring I'd not get involved.

So, I went to Google and entered, "Paragon ICO complaints Reddit."

In two minutes, probably less, I'd confirmed that they were as bad as you claim. I spent about a half hour and read a bunch. If anything, you didn't even mention some of the biggest issues.

The whole thing is shady as hell. They mysteriously went from two to five 'programmers' retroactively. Not only will they not name the programmers, they won't show any of their previous work, such as a GitHub account. The owner probably isn't the owner, but is her husband and he has a storied past that makes me question his ethics.

And it goes on and on. It's like the Equifax of crytocurrency, with regards to a continued stream of negative results. One of the complaints is that they are just in it for the money. Well, yeah... I can see that. I can even rationalize that. But, instead of sticking with their agreed pre-sale amount, they sold like five times as many coins.

How the heck is this even legal? I bet US currency was involved and it has been shown before that that's all it takes for the US Feds to get involved and go stomping across borders.

Seriously, how is it legal?

You didn't even exaggerate! They appear worse than your claim!

As for how they ended up on that site and as the top-most link, I find it hard to give the benefit of doubt. It took me one single search to confirm what you said. I only spent the additional time because I like a good train wreck.

I will give them some credit, their balls must need a cart to carry them around. This kind of money attracts strong enemies, regardless of the legality. There is no way in hell that this is legal.

[ve55]

Haha, I appreciate the response, I'm glad that upon doing your own investigation you found that my wording was reasonable.

As far as legality goes, it's difficulty to say. I think that a project like this is likely paying lawyers good money to make sure they stay 'in the green', but lawyers can only do so much to protect you when you do the things that they're doing. We all know that projects like Paragon and many others are the reasons why regulations will come even harder in these areas.

As for to what extent the law needs to protect investors from making terrible investments, I'm not sure, the game changes a lot when companies start completely lying to their investors, and that does seem to me (as a non-lawyer) like one of the many good places where lines can be drawn.

[KGIII]

The only thing you might be guilty of is minimizing it.

I figured if I was doubtful, other people might be doubtful. Rather than have you be dismissed, it seemed to me that confirming your post was the prudent thing to do.

I was pretty shocked. That's fodder for a whole HN link and thread. I really figured you were blowing it out of proportion. Nope... Hell, the list of complaints goes on and on.

I'm reminded of when drones were gaining in popularity and people, notably on Slashdot, were saying all the things they were doing and how nobody could stop them. I told them that is how you end up with draconian regulations. I was moderated quite heavily in the downward direction. Fast forward a few years and they are complaining about draconian regulations.

Which is to say you're right. They are going to end up coming down on this, and coming down on this hard. I'm sure some rebels will say it can't be prevented, but laws don't work like that. They don't prevent anything. They'll just make cryptocurrency illegal, use and possession, and selectively prosecute the offenders.

That's worst case scenario, I guess. They may just regulate ICOs heavily and stop the regular person from investing. I doubt that will bother the wealthy and established players much. Even better, they'll be doing it 'for your own protection.' Those sound bites will appeal to the masses.

By the way, this is one of those times I wish an HN poster had been wrong.

[ve55]

A bit interesting, just posted after you made this comment was https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15335146.

So maybe companies like Paragon will get in trouble with the SEC for their dealings, even if they do not sell 'securities'.

[nebabyte]

> As far as legality goes, it's difficulty to say.

Didn't the SEC publish a report declaring their stance as ICOs = securities? Doesn't seem that difficult to go from there.

[Cthulhu_]

> Seriously, how is it legal?

Legal? That's Big Government! Crypto is freedom, no gods, no masters! We know better than 300 years of banking, investing, and laws!

/s obviously

[KGIII]

Had you not added the "/s obviously" then I may actually have believed you to be serious.

There are going to be some regulatory changes coming down the pipe, I think. They don't have to try to use tech to prevent the use of cryptocurrency, they need only make it against the law and make use of discretionary prosecution. That's probably one of the weaker tools in their arsenal.