[thisisit]

Fast? How do you figure?

I never understand this kind of logic. So if x agency is bad at following through some it's stated objectives in some cases, it shouldn't even attempt at trying to complete it's objective in other cases too?

[hardwaresofton]

ICOs JUST started popping up -- is it not anomalous that they are reacting so quickly? The problems underscoring the 2008 financial collapse were in place for years before anyone did anything about it (and CDOs are basically back BTW).

I'm not saying the SEC must always move at the same speed on all issues, but it is anomalous that they are moving this fast on this relatively new thing.

[JumpCrisscross]

> is it not anomalous that they are reacting so quickly

One factor that flipped me, personally, from bemused curiosity to thinking this needed enforcement is the tone ICO backers and supporters take to the law.

I have had conversations with ICO sponsors and investors where cavalier disdain was shown for securities regulations, its history or the SEC; where tax evasion was treated casually; and the where most defenses boiled down to whataboutism [1].

Pioneering is one thing. Being blatantly blind to the history of our capital markets is another. Involving retail investors in that willful ignorance should merit prosecution.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

[CryptoPunk]

So essentially your support for punitive measures is politically and ideologically motivated.

>>Involving retail investors in that willful ignorance should merit prosecution.

Making the litmus test for whether someone should be prosecuted your personal evaluation of the ignorance of their political views is pretty far from any semblance of justice.

[JumpCrisscross]

If someone is walking into a dangerous swamp, and you offer them a map, and they say "fuck your map" and then perish in a marked peril, I think it's okay to have limited sympathy. The peril isn't more likely to spring because they chose to be ignorant. They're just more likely to blunder because of it.

The SEC's tendency to go ballistic when retail, i.e. unaccredited investors, are harmed is common industry knowledge. This common knowledge was ignored. The ignorance isn't a reason for prosecution. But it increases the chances that prosecutable mistakes will be made.

Securities law is too complicated to blunder through mindlessly. When I saw how many promoters and investors were doing just that, it was natural to conclude they would, relatively quickly, break important laws and conventions. They have, and the regulators are pissed just as they would be with anyone else making the same mistake.

[ringaroundthetx]

> I have had conversations with ICO sponsors and investors where cavalier disdain was shown for securities regulations, its history or the SEC; where tax evasion was treated casually;

Many are like that, of that many some of them have obtained good lawyers which will advise the business practice properly but not change the opinions of the founders so you wouldn't be able to tell the difference but they may be compliant.

[thisisit]

Anomaly? How do you figure? With 100s of upcoming ICO, action against two is considered to be an anomaly?

Still I am not following your logic here. If this is fast, when do you figure SEC should have taken action? They should have let ICOs defraud people for years because they allowed it during the 2008 crisis before taking action? Two wrongs doesn't make one right.

Do look at my other post. These coins opened themselves to this action.

Additionally, I am sure if one was to dig enough you will find SEC had taken against some of the outright frauds, like these coins, even during the CDO phase.

[gnaritas]

ICO crooks are amateurs, they're easier to catch so things appear to move faster. The Wall Street crooks play at a higher level, take advantage of loopholes in the laws they used their money to have installed. They find or make legal ways to rip people off.

[PeterisP]

ICOs and the way they're offered to the public have strong parallels with all kinds of historical "investment" products and scams that the SEC has already seen and tackled. In that sense, the scammier ICOs are nothing new, they're a new name/cover/veil/buzzword for a common and classic fraud pattern (sell a share in a product that will make you rich, take the money and run), such fads come periodically every now and then, and SEC has had a lot of practice and quickly identifying and shutting down new fads doing the same thing in a slightly different manner.

I don't feel that this is anomalous, this is SEC-as-expected, as they should be doing. If anything "sit out and wait how this new thing works out" would be a major failure of SEC; it's the job of courts and police to punish fraud after it happens, but it's the job of SEC to prevent or restrict fraudulent general reaching public in the first place, it's their duty and law-given mandate to be proactive in shutting potentially shady things down before they've scammed a lot of people.