SEC tightens the noose on ICO-funded startups

[Ctn]

I am dam sure that it is all about the USA only or any ICO that was programmed to run in the USA. Because they can not really regulate the ICO which are formed within different countries as they have no authority to do so. Apart from that I see that most of the ICO's are coming from the outside of US only and they do mention that US people are not allowed to participate in it. May be this is because the concerns of SEC that are always going on in the US country itself. So I think its none of our concern if we are outside US. SEC is already being hard a** on crypto and they will keep on doing this.

[1715436653]

1715436653

[1715436653]

1715436653

[Moonmanmun]

Good its about time someone took a look at all of these scam start up ICOs. 
As if there isnt enough damage already done but its better to stop it before more people lose out on there money.

[Bitfling]

I think its good for investor if SEC looking on ICOs. I am believe it will reducing market from scam ICOs and secure investor money from being scammed.

[figmentofmyass]

at the end of the day: do you need the nanny state telling you what you can invest in? people should be able to avoid scams on their own. caveat emptor and all.

I completely agree with this, but I feel like the problem is how ICOs have been getting away with outright scamming scot-free. I don't mind making gullible people pay for their lessons, but at the same time, crime shouldn't pay.

The US is probably facing difficulties with persecution considering the nature of ICOs, so they're gatekeeping instead.

any ICOs that operate from the USA or have bank accounts in the western world are under threat from the SEC. they've been freezing/seizing assets from ICO operators for over a year now, like these two: https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2017-185-0

or this one: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/30/sec-halts-one-of-the-largest-icos-ever.html

i'm guessing that seeing ICO operators getting bank accounts frozen is a big deterrent to people who are thinking of dodging SEC registration requirements or outright scamming. the hundreds of subpoenas they've sent out since last year have probably had a chilling effect too. it'll be interesting to see what happens to this guy if he keeps trying to dodge their subpoenas: https://www.coindesk.com/sec-asks-court-to-enforce-subpoena-in-ico-inquiry/

so yeah, i think their presence might benefit gullible investors. i just don't feel that bad for pigeons throwing their money away at ICO scams. if it weren't an ICO taking their money, it would be something else. these people are helpless.

[richmcrich]

I believe blockchain technology is freedom and we have to support this freedom from government and financial regulatory agency.

I seconded, but the reality is so different from our expectations. We are living in a society that is governed by too much greedy and inconsiderable humans in the position. If SEC isn't used for this controlling agency's and pressured from the banking sectors then the intention can be taken lightly for ICO’s investor protection.

Blockchain means FREEDOM

This has always been the reasons why a lot of people have been skeptical with what regulation is going to end up bringing and now that there is a huge limitation making ICOs only applicable to those who are rich, that is going to be messing up everything, However, one thing is that this is a global space and even if I have a great idea, i obviously just need to go pitch my idea in a very different environment that is friendly with ICOs I guess.

That is what I see with the freedom that the space brings and that is one thing I know no matter what some government or SEC may want to be doing, there will always be a room for most people globally.

[Sama517]

This fresh decision of SEC may have a bad effect on ICOs. It means some ICOs may run forever without been able to get complete. Even the small contributions of $100 from the low income earners also counts. It helps to make the ICO complete faster.

[frowsiter]

What do you mean by this article? Only people with net worth of 1 million USD are allowed to take participation in the ICO's? Really is that even true or possible to happen in the near future. I mean whats the strategy behind this, make poor more poor and rich people richest
Looks like I smell worst regulation to come in effect. But I dont understand one thing here, how come they can regulate it if the investors can invest money via blockchain with anonymous nature and have no issues putting their money. May be I am taking the whole thing in other way around but SEC is devil here. 

[Buttermellow]

I consider it good news because ICO project will be put to limit and will be less likely to do scam. I hope SEC will consider it to implement the regulations to all over the nations so as ICO scam will stop. It seems some ICO's do not really imolement the project instead just put it to an exchange. This must be regulated and put to end. Many cryptos now were undervalue because they were no real project to be found.

[magneto]

Essentially what the SEC has done here is limit ICOs from being sold to the poor, which is one of the main initiatives that fueled its growth in the 1st place.

It definitely doesn't make sense to me why they would want to do this.

Sure, you could argue that people with more of a net worth would be able to make better decisions with their money, but if they were investing in regulated ICOs that have been screened, who cares if lower income workers invests in that? It's their money ultimately. If anything, this is an obvious attempt to try and restrict access to these investments and to discourage ICOs from starting in the first place.

But as you said, it is very geographically limited and we've already seen tons of crowdfunded projects in the past not offer their products to the US and China, so not really surprising.

[hatshepsut93]

I consider it good news because ICO project will be put to limit and will be less likely to do scam. I hope SEC will consider it to implement the regulations to all over the nations so as ICO scam will stop. It seems some ICO's do not really imolement the project instead just put it to an exchange. This must be regulated and put to end. Many cryptos now were undervalue because they were no real project to be found.

The SEC is American regulator, they have no power over other countries, it's up to local governments to deal with ICO's. Although other nations might just copy SEC's framework for regulating ICO's to avoid the hassle of developing their own. Or maybe they won't even bother to do it, because ICO's are dying anyway, and governments seem to generally not give much attention to online scams.

[alonelyorange]

SEC have bad reputation where make many ico have ended early, I can feel how ico centra project have die after faced problem with SEC team, when centra listing at exchange market have $5 price but with SEC problem now their coin have scam and die.

[Lotermity91]

I am dam sure that it is all about the USA only or any ICO that was programmed to run in the USA. Because they can not really regulate the ICO which are formed within different countries as they have no authority to do so. Apart from that I see that most of the ICO's are coming from the outside of US only and they do mention that US people are not allowed to participate in it. May be this is because the concerns of SEC that are always going on in the US country itself. So I think its none of our concern if we are outside US. SEC is already being hard a** on crypto and they will keep on doing this.

Of course it is only ICO's that are based in USA but that is actually enough to make them regulative governmental program. If you want to look more legit I would suggest any ICO that feels like they are doing the right thing and not after scamming people and based in USA to not run away somewhere else and just stay their grounds and open their business in USA with SEC regulations followed strictly so it would tell everyone who wants to invest to their ICO how legit they are and not aiming to run away with their money. If I see a new ICO coming up from somewhere like nicaragua but the office is in UK and if I see a new ICO in silicon valley and opened the business in Silicon Valley following all rules which one do you think I would prefer to invest into? Definitely the one with proper papers are making it easier to invest in them.

[spongegar]

I think this is a good mobe by the SEC. As it is, ICOs are having a bad rep in the crypto currency market that more and more ICOs ended up being a crap coin and investors are holding the short end of the stick. I think more regulations would make ICOs more effective to put up money to make the coin survive.

[Bonsaiav]

I'm very enthusiastic and support the SEC's performance steps, in managing and regulating the trading market, especially in the field of cryptonization that we are currently in In my opinion, what the SEC is doing is one form of attentiveness, especially for users of cryptocurrencies who are vulnerable to lose due to the actions of manipulators.

I think this is a good mobe by the SEC. As it is, ICOs are having a bad rep in the crypto currency market that more and more ICOs ended up being a crap coin and investors are holding the short end of the stick. I think more regulations would make ICOs more effective to put up money to make the coin survive.

Not only that, the performance of the SEC agency is worthy of our appreciation especially in eradicating several ICO projects that are considered irrelevant to the interests of many people, I think there are many modus operandi carried out by ICO developers, not even a few who embezzled funds customers.