[2018-05-01] SEC Official Criticizes ICO Industry, Open to Regulated Future

[Greenkarki]

SEC Official Criticizes State of ICO Industry, Open to Regulated Future

United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) commissioner, Robert Jackson, has expressed his belief that initial coin offerings (ICOs) will be legitimized under existing securities legislation. Despite the optimistic outlook, the commissioner has criticized the current state of the ICO industry.

SEC Commissioner Expects ICOs Have Legitimate Future

SEC Official Criticizes State of ICO Industry, Open to Regulated FutureIn an interview with CNBC, SEC commissioner, Robert Jackson, recently expressed cautious optimism regarding ICOs – predicting that initial coin offerings will be conformed to the rubric of existing securities regulations in future.

“Down the road, I think we will be thinking about ways to make those investments work consistent with our securities laws,” Robert Jackson said.

https://news.bitcoin.com/sec-official-criticizes-state-ico-industry-open-regulated-future/?utm_source=OneSignal%20Push&utm_medium=notification&utm_campaign=Push%20Notifications

Your thoughts on Commissioner's decision.

[1715036869]

1715036869

[1715036869]

1715036869

[1715036869]

1715036869

[1715036869]

1715036869

[dE_logics]

I think it is rational to expect that there will always be frauds with ICOs, even as there are frauds with IPOs.

[Spaffin]

The problem of regulating the ICO process has been long overdue, and states are even already late in regulating this type of activity. However, the regulation of ICO projects may be different. It is important not to overtake the stick. We need to make this process transparent and protect the rights of investors. Needless to say, regulation can also be harmful. In the US, the regulation of the crypto currency is always harsh. I would like it to be done first by other countries (and about the upcoming regulation of ICO have already been announced in France, Russia, Japan and Australia), and only then that the US should use the practice that has been developed.

[hatshepsut93]

I think the whole point of ICO's is that you can just participate in them via Ethereum without any third parties at all - this makes investing available to broader audiences. When governments will start regulating ICO's, they would become no different from IPO's and there will be many obstacles for potential investors. So, for ICO's it would mean that we'll see drastic reduction of new projects, while some ICO's will choose to operate regardless of their legal status.

[Qartersa]

To me this is not shocking to the senses because it is in fact an EXPECTED reaction to the ever-growing cryptocurrency market. Of course governments through the SEC would always go for regulation because that is where their function hinges- just that I do not know if they are already well-versed on how the crypto market works. It might be they have the best interests of the people but they are missing the point. You know, it happens. Surely people do not want a time where the digital age would only copy the traditional one because there is definitely no growth in that. There has to be an edge leaning towards the ICOs that would sway people into the belief that this is what we all NEED at this point. Criticisms can only do so much.

[Theb]

I think the whole point of ICO's is that you can just participate in them via Ethereum without any third parties at all - this makes investing available to broader audiences. When governments will start regulating ICO's, they would become no different from IPO's and there will be many obstacles for potential investors. So, for ICO's it would mean that we'll see drastic reduction of new projects, while some ICO's will choose to operate regardless of their legal status.

I cannot look at it as a problem, ICOs in the first place are at an advantage compared to IPOs of a company, you know before they can even have an IPO they would be needed to be represented by a bank to manage their application and would need to have a certain amount of market cap in order to belong to a proper market from small emerging market to the big blue chips one chances are you might not even belong to any market group in the first place. While ICOs even under ER20 tokens don't need to go to that rigorous process, what they only need to do is to launch various campaigns in order to market/sell their token's ICO.

As a developer of a token of course this would mean more time and money spent before I can even launch and promote my Token. But as an investor I would definitely want some kind of regulation involve in order to protect my money, and I think investors are the ones who needs to be protected in here as they are the ones who will be providing more money. Knowing that this ICOs won't be running away with my money easily can give me a peace of mind, I can even invest more money now knowing some regulation is taking place.

[gentlemand]

I think the whole point of ICO's is that you can just participate in them via Ethereum without any third parties at all - this makes investing available to broader audiences. When governments will start regulating ICO's, they would become no different from IPO's and there will be many obstacles for potential investors. So, for ICO's it would mean that we'll see drastic reduction of new projects, while some ICO's will choose to operate regardless of their legal status.

ICOs rapidly proved why there are such things as the SEC. A crypto developer can gift the world with something like ETH, the world will take it and use it to rape each other.

If they hadn't exploded in the last couple of years they might well have stayed under the radar for a while longer, but there's no way they wouldn't have been used to milk the gullible by as many people as possible eventually.

Don't get arsey at regulators, get arsey at the pricks who pushed them into acting.