Hacker News Reader

Comment by seibelj | Hacker News Reader

The JOBS act was a push towards securitized crowdfunding but it had too many strings and never took off like many hoped. ICO's are proof that there is demand for real-time trading in private companies with micro-investment, but it also has obvious issues.

My hope is securitized-ICO's develop that make it easier to raise money from a global pool of investors, and the investors also have liquidity and legal rights. We need regulation that improves the situation without destroying it.

View on HN

There's demand but there is no supply. No serious company is going to crowdfund away actual equity. Only the very worst companies are going to go out on the street and beg randos for capital hence ICOs. The reality is that the public will never have access to high quality deals. But there is a lot of money being left on the table that is flowing into scammy ICOs and badly managed Kickstarter projects. It's really too bad the IRS has nothing on the spectrum between private foundations and highly regulated public charities. There's a case to be made for "micro-foundations" that could be crowdfunded for a common purpose and would be barred from issuing ownership shares or taking on debt. (At dissolution time all "profits" of the charity must be disbursed to another charity.) There's a real failure of imagination here at the IRS: the internet makes it ever easier people to collaborate but it's very difficult to effectively pool capital which leads to Kickstarter and ICOs both of which are very sub-optimal solutions for everybody.

> ICO's are proof that there is demand for real-time trading in private companies

ICOs are proof all the retail investor protections I used to think were irrelevant are unbelievably important.

ICOs are proof that there is demand for real-time trading in private companies with micro-investment

Is it? Or is it proof that people will put up with really sketchy structures to chase potential 10x-10,000x returns? Prudent token offerings like Sia have had low demand.

It's bigger than that. It's about disenfranchisement of the people. Less than 2% of accredited investors are black, less than 5% women. Capitalism in tech can be thought of as voting for the future with your money.

The JOBS act is like saying blacks and women can vote, but only on 10% of issues and their votes aren't counted as heavily.

Right now there's the biggest disenfranchisement of our lives and most people don't even see it. It's selling the future out from under the public, and not even giving them a chance to buy in. It's racist and sexist to start off with, then it gets worse as you look. And it's completely state sponsored through authoritarian laws built for 'protection'.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com