Honestly, i'm kind of annoyed by everyone offering an ICO for [insert irrelevant product here]. It's creating a misleading advertising scheme built on top of a current tech _craze_ that will likely leave a lot of "investors" out of money.<p>The problem is that you're giving money to a relatively unknown company while speculating that the company will create inherent value. Unlike with stocks, you don't have ownership in the company or any voting rights. There is nothing stopping the company's creators from distributing the ICO money to themselves (there might be a board, but since the company isn't public who knows who the board is).<p>In this case the SEC is right to step in so there aren't a ton of unregulated securities going around and a lot of consumers potentially getting screwed.<p>Even with cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin, it can be scary. You're literally getting into the ForEx market, which is known to be one of the riskiest markets in existence. With other currencies, at least they're backed by a government that (at least at least attempts) to regulate it's value and protect it from manipulation. With bitcoin, I saw that 40% of all coins in existence are owned by less that 1,000 people. How do we know that the current price inflations aren't a manipulation (or collusion) to jack up the price, sell for USD, then crash the market? It's not illegal/collusion because Bitcoin isn't regulated.<p>This is definitely a rant, but I have some serious concerns as to where this market is going. Would love to hear other's thoughts.
What Is the Howey Test? - FindLaw<p><a href="http://consumer.findlaw.com/securities-law/what-is-the-howey-test.html" rel="nofollow">http://consumer.findlaw.com/securities-law/what-is-the-howey...</a><p>"The final factor of the Howey Test concerns whether any profit that comes from the investment is largely or wholly outside of the investor's control. If so, then the investment might be a security. If, however, the investor's own actions largely dictate whether an investment will be profitable, then that investment is probably not a security."<p>Howey Test
<a href="https://youtu.be/9lTS1Zofw8w" rel="nofollow">https://youtu.be/9lTS1Zofw8w</a>
Related to this bigger HN submission from yesterday ("Statement on Cryptocurrencies and Initial Coin Offerings"): <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15902054" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15902054</a><p>That statement was released on the same day as the Munchee decision, and the Munchee decision is linked from the statement<p>Context (the Munchee decision is in footnote 6): "I urge market professionals, including securities lawyers, accountants and consultants, to read closely the investigative report we released earlier this year (the “21(a) Report”)[5] and review our subsequent enforcement actions.[6]"
To put this in perspective, Token Report analyzed its database of ICOs and found each one that currently uses similar language to Munchee; or, promises returns to investors. <a href="https://medium.com/tokenreport/token-report-whos-been-breaking-the-rules-only-12-icos-opening-this-week-c6820bff9602" rel="nofollow">https://medium.com/tokenreport/token-report-whos-been-breaki...</a>
> In short, Munchee was undone by two things: depending on the token sale as a vehicle to raise cash for operations and using the typically spammy and scammy marketing efforts most ICO floggers use now, tactics taken directly from affiliate marketing handbooks.<p>It seems that most ICO do both the things. If not a self-inflicting post about the token growth but at least the raising cash for operations part.
These rules will only apply to companies within the jurisdiction of the SEC, correct? Hypothetically, I don't see how the SEC could shut down ICOs from companies registered outside the US, even from Americans.
The hype will die down as the SEC gets involved and regulations are pursued. Smart time to take profits in my opinion. Many will be left holding the bag as we see a correction to more sustainable levels. Bitcoin is here to stay, but these prices are not rational, driven purely off of emotion.
Seems to me they were not engaged in anything different from video games which allow you to purchase ingame virtual currency. What's the difference? Genuine question.
I keep hearing pundits talk about cryptocurrencies as being "outside the regulation of any government" over and over. They need to stop saying this.
I don't get how the SEC differentiates between ICOs and kickstarters (not considering the ICOs that promise their token value to increase over time). How can there be any kind of innovation in fund raising space if the SEC wants every thing to be registered as securities. What bugs me the most is that many ICOs are funded by virtual currencies (btc or eth) and still SEC considers it self to have jurisdiction over the transactions that grown-up individuals do. Instead of considering $1mil net worth investors are accredited, SEC should have a certification test that an individual can take to prove he understands finance. If someone has $1mil, it doesn't prove a damn thing. It could very well be that they inherited it or won in a lottery.