The fly-by-night ICO market has the difficulties of both trying to defraud investors and sucking at it. Successfully fucking over the general public usually requires building an institutional apparatus around you to confer legitimacy - you can't just take the money and run without expecting some form of sanction.
It seems objectively difficult to find anyone that's going to say the SEC is doing a great job at reining in the financial sector -- so my question stands, why are they doing such a good job at reining in ICOs, using tech that's barely understood by the general populace (though it's probably easy to spot how scummy they are), and in an absolutely new regulatory landscape?
0. Enron - Senate committee concludes Enron was enabled by a systemic and catastrophic failure at the SEC[0]. Smartest Guys in the Room[1] is one of the better books about it
1. No One Would Listen - book from Madoff whistleblower Harry Markopolos[2]. He spent years laying out the entire Madoff case for the SEC yet their investigators kept signing off on Madoff. He has a lot of good detail on why the SEC are a bad regulator.
2. Financial Crisis - SEC chairman concedes the oversight program was fatally flawed in monitoring Bear Sterns and other hedge funds[3] - plenty of books on crisis, "After the Music Stopped" was good[4]
[0] https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB1033944629262271233
[1] https://www.amazon.com/Smartest-Guys-Room-Amazing-Scandalous...
[2] https://www.amazon.com/No-One-Would-Listen-Financial/dp/0470...
[3] http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/27/business/27sec.html?mcubz=...
[4] https://www.amazon.com/After-Music-Stopped-Financial-Respons...
Even if you pin the blame on bad actors that took control of ratings bodies and propogated bad CDOs, are you suggesting that the SEC was blameless? Would you not say it's within the purview of the SEC to manage/monitor/influence CDO product selling/purchasing?
I'm not arguing that some regulations aren't beneficial. Only pointing out that it's tough to argue, using history, "we had a crash because not enough regulation!!!"
I never understand this kind of logic. So if x agency is bad at following through some it's stated objectives in some cases, it shouldn't even attempt at trying to complete it's objective in other cases too?
I'm not saying the SEC must always move at the same speed on all issues, but it is anomalous that they are moving this fast on this relatively new thing.
One factor that flipped me, personally, from bemused curiosity to thinking this needed enforcement is the tone ICO backers and supporters take to the law.
I have had conversations with ICO sponsors and investors where cavalier disdain was shown for securities regulations, its history or the SEC; where tax evasion was treated casually; and the where most defenses boiled down to whataboutism [1].
Pioneering is one thing. Being blatantly blind to the history of our capital markets is another. Involving retail investors in that willful ignorance should merit prosecution.
>>Involving retail investors in that willful ignorance should merit prosecution.
Making the litmus test for whether someone should be prosecuted your personal evaluation of the ignorance of their political views is pretty far from any semblance of justice.
The SEC's tendency to go ballistic when retail, i.e. unaccredited investors, are harmed is common industry knowledge. This common knowledge was ignored. The ignorance isn't a reason for prosecution. But it increases the chances that prosecutable mistakes will be made.
Securities law is too complicated to blunder through mindlessly. When I saw how many promoters and investors were doing just that, it was natural to conclude they would, relatively quickly, break important laws and conventions. They have, and the regulators are pissed just as they would be with anyone else making the same mistake.
Many are like that, of that many some of them have obtained good lawyers which will advise the business practice properly but not change the opinions of the founders so you wouldn't be able to tell the difference but they may be compliant.
Still I am not following your logic here. If this is fast, when do you figure SEC should have taken action? They should have let ICOs defraud people for years because they allowed it during the 2008 crisis before taking action? Two wrongs doesn't make one right.
Do look at my other post. These coins opened themselves to this action.
Additionally, I am sure if one was to dig enough you will find SEC had taken against some of the outright frauds, like these coins, even during the CDO phase.
I don't feel that this is anomalous, this is SEC-as-expected, as they should be doing. If anything "sit out and wait how this new thing works out" would be a major failure of SEC; it's the job of courts and police to punish fraud after it happens, but it's the job of SEC to prevent or restrict fraudulent general reaching public in the first place, it's their duty and law-given mandate to be proactive in shutting potentially shady things down before they've scammed a lot of people.
That said, I find it very interesting that JFK's father Joseph P. Kennedy was the first one in charge of "cleaning up wallstreet" via the SEC, but all the indicators show it was much more about going after the mid-level and low-hanging fruit on wallstreet in order to assuage the publics view of the markets (remember the 29 crash was in recent memory as SEC was formed in 34).
Please, us conspiracy theorists have a hard enough time on the internet, if you are on HN please take the time to put in some effort (one of the things that makes HN consistently better for discussion than other forums), otherwise you are just making it harder on us to reach others.