An Open Letter to the SEC is Coming. Is This Due?

[ngin-x]

The crypto market works best as a self-regulating entity. Nobody is forcing anyone's hand in buying the ICOs. If people are ready to invest heavily in ICOs without understanding the fundamentals behind a coin and get scammed in the process, it's their problem. We don't need the government to protect noobs everywhere.

When I invest in an ICO, I do it with the full understanding that my entire money is at risk. If I lose it, so be it. It's time people took ownership of their actions instead of expecting the government to bail them out.

[1714607953]

1714607953

[1714607953]

1714607953

[1714607953]

1714607953

[1714607953]

1714607953

[1714607953]

1714607953

[Triffin]

The SEC can start looking for the "bad actors" using this list ..

https://www.smithandcrown.com/icos/


Triff ..

[Chin Cheng]

What will happen to ETH when the US suddenly declares Vitalik Buterin as the enemy of the State? It will collapse in a flash.
and if they try to do it with bitcoin... Who'll be getting arrested as the creator of Bitcoin? No-one.

Hopefully Craig Wright, that would be poetic justice.

How come Craig Wright be prosecuted while no one is accepting him and when the entire core members will abandon the people setting those news,from what i understand the few people who had a real conversation between him and one was Gavin and when he clarified that he is the real deal ,everyone started dumping on him and that will happen to anyone who is vouching him.

[tokeweed]

Anyway, thinking about it more, yes we know the SEC will come down and get somebody arrested, yes some new regulation to define what an ICO will come for sure, but is regulation in crypto what really want?  I mean I like Chris DeRose, I think he's great and he's someone to be listened to in the space, but did he really have to try and stir up the hornet's nest?

I think having a community that is against scammy use cases of cryptocurrency is a good thing. But we don't even have to argue about whether regulation of ICOs "in crypto" is what we really want -- securities law already exists and applies here. There's nothing magical in blockchain technology that is going to stop a scammy, ICO-creating CEO from being arrested for committing securities fraud. It's *going* to happen. Do we want to be associated with scammers, or do we want our community to self police, educate, and put more of a distance between the good uses for cryptocurrency and the bad uses for cryptocurrency, and do it on the front end?

Crypto will always be associated with illegal activities and nefarious endeavors, nothing will change that.  Even without any ICO, Bitcoin is already associated with illegal drugs, ransomware, pedophilia, illegal gambling (probably mostly under aged gambling too) and lots of other stuff.  So what's a another questionable use case like ICO investing/gambling?  It's nothing...  Just another one of those things you can do with Bitcoin.

[mmortal03]

Anyway, thinking about it more, yes we know the SEC will come down and get somebody arrested, yes some new regulation to define what an ICO will come for sure, but is regulation in crypto what really want?  I mean I like Chris DeRose, I think he's great and he's someone to be listened to in the space, but did he really have to try and stir up the hornet's nest?

I think having a community that is against scammy use cases of cryptocurrency is a good thing. But we don't even have to argue about whether regulation of ICOs "in crypto" is what we really want -- securities law already exists and applies here. There's nothing magical in blockchain technology that is going to stop a scammy, ICO-creating CEO from being arrested for committing securities fraud. It's *going* to happen. Do we want to be associated with scammers, or do we want our community to self police, educate, and put more of a distance between the good uses for cryptocurrency and the bad uses for cryptocurrency, and do it on the front end?

Crypto will always be associated with illegal activities and nefarious endeavors, nothing will change that.  Even without any ICO, Bitcoin is already associated with illegal drugs, ransomware, pedophilia, illegal gambling (probably mostly under aged gambling too) and lots of other stuff.  So what's a another questionable use case like ICO investing/gambling?  It's nothing...  Just another one of those things you can do with Bitcoin.

All of that *is* associated with Bitcoin (well, ICOs more with Ethereum at the moment), but it doesn't mean that as Bitcoiners, we are somehow obligated to be *against* the government working to find ways to stop things such as ransomware, pedophilia (well, child porn), or ICO scams.

[digaran]

Visit ethereum.org and then start your own token/ICO right in your browser and then start selling those tokens to your family members then tell your cousin to launch an exchanging platform so the whole family could go there and trade their tokens.
There is no infrastructure being used, no governmental resources being used, just the old and simple internet and every body happily pay their bills.
This is a private club and no government could have a saying in this matter. thanks to Bitcoin there is no need for fiat involvement any more so no regulation there.
I think you missed the whole point of crypto currencies they are the middle finger to the world masters, you can't control and manipulate us you bitches. /:

[arpon11]

Like op has said it might be an interest of one person. Because you loss when the coins is on ICO level don't mean they are all scams, shit, and criminal. Crytocurrency is still at the infancy stage and manipulation is highly allow during infancy.

[kryptopojken]

Snitches gon' snitch

[Febo]

The SEC can start looking for the "bad actors" using this list ..

https://www.smithandcrown.com/icos/


Triff ..

That is a good list but sadly is just from November 2016. ICOs were happening for at least 2 years before. 2014 was thin, but in 2015 was already quite some ICOs. 2016 we saw them booming as they still do.

[tokeweed]

Anyway, thinking about it more, yes we know the SEC will come down and get somebody arrested, yes some new regulation to define what an ICO will come for sure, but is regulation in crypto what really want?  I mean I like Chris DeRose, I think he's great and he's someone to be listened to in the space, but did he really have to try and stir up the hornet's nest?

I think having a community that is against scammy use cases of cryptocurrency is a good thing. But we don't even have to argue about whether regulation of ICOs "in crypto" is what we really want -- securities law already exists and applies here. There's nothing magical in blockchain technology that is going to stop a scammy, ICO-creating CEO from being arrested for committing securities fraud. It's *going* to happen. Do we want to be associated with scammers, or do we want our community to self police, educate, and put more of a distance between the good uses for cryptocurrency and the bad uses for cryptocurrency, and do it on the front end?

Crypto will always be associated with illegal activities and nefarious endeavors, nothing will change that.  Even without any ICO, Bitcoin is already associated with illegal drugs, ransomware, pedophilia, illegal gambling (probably mostly under aged gambling too) and lots of other stuff.  So what's a another questionable use case like ICO investing/gambling?  It's nothing...  Just another one of those things you can do with Bitcoin.

All of that *is* associated with Bitcoin (well, ICOs more with Ethereum at the moment), but it doesn't mean that as Bitcoiners, we are somehow obligated to be *against* the government working to find ways to stop things such as ransomware, pedophilia (well, child porn), or ICO scams.

That's true, and I know he means well.  But his bias against Ethereum and ICO's is showing here.  If he wants to write an open letter to the SEC then I would like to see him to write an open letter to the FBI asking them to put a halt on all the drug trafficking going on in the darknet.  Those same Bitcoins used in the ICO's are also used on drugs and it puts minors at risk in hurting themselves.

Do you get the point of what I'm trying to say here?

[mmortal03]

Anyway, thinking about it more, yes we know the SEC will come down and get somebody arrested, yes some new regulation to define what an ICO will come for sure, but is regulation in crypto what really want?  I mean I like Chris DeRose, I think he's great and he's someone to be listened to in the space, but did he really have to try and stir up the hornet's nest?

I think having a community that is against scammy use cases of cryptocurrency is a good thing. But we don't even have to argue about whether regulation of ICOs "in crypto" is what we really want -- securities law already exists and applies here. There's nothing magical in blockchain technology that is going to stop a scammy, ICO-creating CEO from being arrested for committing securities fraud. It's *going* to happen. Do we want to be associated with scammers, or do we want our community to self police, educate, and put more of a distance between the good uses for cryptocurrency and the bad uses for cryptocurrency, and do it on the front end?

Crypto will always be associated with illegal activities and nefarious endeavors, nothing will change that.  Even without any ICO, Bitcoin is already associated with illegal drugs, ransomware, pedophilia, illegal gambling (probably mostly under aged gambling too) and lots of other stuff.  So what's a another questionable use case like ICO investing/gambling?  It's nothing...  Just another one of those things you can do with Bitcoin.

All of that *is* associated with Bitcoin (well, ICOs more with Ethereum at the moment), but it doesn't mean that as Bitcoiners, we are somehow obligated to be *against* the government working to find ways to stop things such as ransomware, pedophilia (well, child porn), or ICO scams.

That's true, and I know he means well.  But his bias against Ethereum and ICO's is showing here.  If he wants to write an open letter to the SEC then I would like to see him to write an open letter to the FBI asking them to put a halt on all the drug trafficking going on in the darknet.  Those same Bitcoins used in the ICO's are also used on drugs and it puts minors at risk in hurting themselves.

Do you get the point of what I'm trying to say here?

Not necessarily. I think he is against ICOs being built on top of Bitcoin, too. He's also fully allowed to not be in agreement with the government on everything, without being a hypocrite. In other words, he may believe that drug trafficking on the darknet is largely good for the world, but ICOs are largely bad for the world. And, I suspect he *would* be supportive of the government trying to find ways for minors to not buy drugs on the dark net. But he's also allowed to pick the issues where he feels he can make the most impact. He's not obligated to come out with a public statement on every potential problematic effect of Bitcoin for him to remain consistent.

[xypos]

I doubt that 1% of people has ever heard of this guy before you mentioned him here.

And applications of bitcoin funds have not worked, even though it is directly mailed to the SEC. What will make the SEC even take notice on this random nobody in the internet full of trolls? They seem uninterested in btc, period.

No, i don't think that this will make any significant impact on bitcoin.

[mmortal03]

I doubt that 1% of people has ever heard of this guy before you mentioned him here.

And applications of bitcoin funds have not worked, even though it is directly mailed to the SEC. What will make the SEC even take notice on this random nobody in the internet full of trolls? They seem uninterested in btc, period.

No, i don't think that this will make any significant impact on bitcoin.

He's one of the bigger Bitcoin podcasters, and he's published articles at various sites that are known by mainstream audiences. Sure, it's hard to say how much of an impact this will make, but there's nothing wrong with him giving it a shot.

[tokeweed]

Xypos lol.  Chris DeRose has by far had the biggest impact out of every 'oracle in BTC' I have tried to listen to.  His style may be a turn off to some but his message is the truth nevertheless.  All of you are being fooled by scammers who don't know they're scamming even themselves, plain and simple.

His message is what's encouraging me to actually learn about Bitcoin and blockchains, so that I could find out for myself if some project really is technically feasible.  But that doesn't mean I'll quit trading the scams.    I'm more aware than I used to be tho.  That's the best part.

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

Who is Chris DeRose and why would the SEC pay any attention to him?

ICOs will be brought to heel whether or not someone points them out. It's a healthy thing ultimately.

It will definitely rock the alt market, but only certain sections and Bitcoin itself hasn't gone anywhere near it. I assume the overall price effect might be negative for everyone. You'd have to be a moron not to have seen it coming.

He's the host of Bitcoin Uncensored and one of the few critical minds I've found in the space. Check it out.

[mmortal03]

"The Securities and Exchange Commission is said to be taking a hard look at the increased use of such offerings, with the growth of so-called ICOs surging in recent months."

http://www.reuters.com/article/bc-finreg-bitcoin-ico-idUSKBN1942HF

[Triffin]

The fundamental difference between an IPO and an ICO is that an IPO occurs after several stages of private financing
via professional Investors who know the risks and there is normally a functional business which generates cashflow
(if not profit) with several years of operation behind each one.

IPOs exist as a mechanism to "cash out" the VC investor groups via a public marketplace ..
Risk is necessarily transferred from the VCs to the general investing public ..
It's the primary VC exit strategy ..

ICOs are at the first stage of investment and are a mechanism to "cash in" or crowd fund an "idea" ..
Weather the "idea" being financed via ICO has merit or weather the management has the ability
to deliver on the promises in the [ANN] thread is the "risk" that we individually assume when we
"invest" or "speculate" on such ventures ..

I'm sure at some point the SEC will attempt to establish "rules" for US based participants ..
Most likely following a spectacular ICO failure/fraud or when/if someone in authority
reads Mr DeRose's diatribe and connects the dots ..

Triff ..