Why should a global decentralized currency be beholden to local regulation?
I guess the lesson is to do a fair launch and run nicehash to control a large percentage of the network. Then you don't have to abide by SEC regulation as the coin does not represent a centralized organization.
> Why should a global decentralized currency be beholden to local regulation?
Because people, who are the important factor here and not your burnt CPU cycles, live in those localities and have generally agreed to live in this thing called "society" where regulations are made within that society's jurisdiction.
A local currency should be beholden to local regulation.
A global decentralized currency should be beholden to every local regulation in which it is used, since the users fall under that jurisdiction - if it's not compatible with local regulation, then it should stay away from that locality and the people there.
In particular, ICOs should care about USA regulation if they want to attract money from people in USA; they can freely ignore SEC iff they keep their activities outside of USA and don't attempt to market their "investment" to customers in USA.
I've not heard any reason why these ICOs are any different than any other security. Simply being "on a computer" never should have been enough for patents, and it most definitely isn't enough here.
It likely wouldn't exist without the scam component. The original developer never intended to follow through with his vision, but it was a good enough vision that many people decided it was worth investing in and working towards.
My point was that there are regularization factors in the market that exist without a centralized organization rubber stamping actions. Of course, that doesn't fit the narrative that people, especially the poor and intelligent, must be protected from themselves.
I honestly do not believe that. If it was a good idea, it would be possible to create it in a non-scammy way.
My point is that there is no reason to not have the disclosure and reporting regulations in place. You really have not countered that. And claiming that there is a narrative about protecting people from themselves really doesn't work when we're talking about regulations designed to disclose the information that would allow them to make those decisions.
Regulations provide an avenue for rejecting actions. This avenue can be subsequently abused by bad actors - for example, accredited investment is abused by the wealthy to extend their opportunities at the expense of the middle class and poor.
Feel free to buy lottery tickets or gamble, just don't let us catch you investing in a startup seed round.
"Feel free to buy lottery tickets or gamble, just don't let us catch you investing in a startup seed round."
People keep spouting that argument, and I'm utterly unconvinced of its relevance. Namely because you're arguing against the very things that would compel disclosure of the information required to make an informed decision. The other two things you mentioned have that information provided.
Yes if you read the fine print you can tell what your chances of social mobility are from a lottery ticket. It's fine if the wealthy elite take the 1000x returns from successful startups.
We wouldn't want the poor hurting themselves.
Coins represent a better approach, one not walled off to the general public. Coins can represent concepts or goals that live beyond a centralized organization providing documentation. Of course there is vested interest in regulation. Accredited investors love the walled gardens.
I guess the lesson is to do a fair launch and run nicehash to control a large percentage of the network. Then you don't have to abide by SEC regulation as the coin does not represent a centralized organization.