Hacker News Reader

Comment by Trundle | Hacker News Reader

How is that an unfair playing field? People being rewarded for productive risk taking is one of the fairest things I can think of.

View on HN

The rule of law is a public good; companies that damage it are imposing a negative externality on others for their own advantage, and should be penalised rather than rewarded.

Well, I called the SEC and they said they can't think of a way how these ICOs are not violating the Howey Test. Basically that in time, they be prosecuted.

So, those of us that decide that the potential for financial or criminal consequences is not with it miss out when it turns out all but the most egregious scams will get a pass.

Through my work we’ve been in contact with the SEC as well, a few times, and they are pretty clear on not stating any real absolutes unfortunately. We do more of the service side of things for the institutional space, however - so perhaps our questions were a bit different.

Sure, I understand where the risk is coming from. I don't understand where the unfairness is coming from.

I guess because it's unfair to people who view breaking the law as an unacceptable risk when those who bend or break the law are profiting.

Because what you classify as "taking a risk" most of us classify as "potentially breaking the law."

Pablo Escobar was on to something then, ... well until he wasn't.

His crime was he got too big and bold. Fly under the radar and you'll survive.

Even facetiously, that's a hard point to make. Cocaine has been illegal in the US for a very long time.

Breaking the law shouldn't be considered a competitive advantage.

That depends on what the law is and if it is ever enforced.

So, you'd consider for-hire hitmen a fine business, if they pay off your police?

but it is, and always will be, a competitive advantage. that's part of why the law should be kept as small as possible.

Well, yeah, exactly, but that's why it's the law. Stealing is a competitive advantage (for the thief), but a net negative for the society, which is why it's illegal and persecuted.

I agree with you, that the law should be as small as possible, but you're missing the second part (just as important IMO) - that the law (small as it should be) be enforced fully and applied fairly.

If she doesn't say no it's a competitive advantage to other suitors, right?

That's literally what you're advocating for.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com