Coinbase reportedly gets approval from US regulators for tokenized securities

I can also imagine startup equity being tokenized. Where an exchange like Coinbase acts like SecondMarket (now called Nasdaq Private Market). This might be a great way for early employees and founders to get liquidity before the company IPOs. It would change the startup game completely. A lot of things to look forward to here.

Well, this is funny.

I ask:

Are Tokenized Securities like lending? Are there any sort of borrowing interests?

Cause I haven't read the Bible (neither I'm religious), just googled it. But, isn't this like the beginning of a new economy? Are you a_d like the bad guys in the Bible fiction? Is 2000 years some universal cycle period time?

https://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-lending-money.html

A lot of people is going to lose a lot of money with this new betting game. Big Crypto holders will continue keeping their cryptos.

Well, it's going to be funny as hell to watch it.

But remember:

- Angry people might eventually go after yourselves, violently, once they lose all their savings.

Not me, I will be partying in Mallorca next week, with local friends. Spending money earned the classic way: WORKING.

This needs to be higher. Most of the comments appear to assume that this clears to way to everyone buying, holding, and selling these tokenized securities.

If it's limited to qualified investors, which appears to be the case, then while it's a nice little achievement for Coinbase, it's not even close to the groundbreaking change most comments seem to imply.

What makes ETH a security? Its not an investment in a company equity, its a store of value.

Are you talking about Cardano, Basic Attention Token, Stellar Lumens, Zcash and 0x mentioned in the article? These are not supposedly assets. These were added prior to this announcement and don't really have any relationship to this. AFAIK CB hasn't announced any particular security tokens for listing.

If these coins are so straightforward to attack, then what's stopping people? What's defending rational actors from doing the rational thing and squeezing their networks for all the guaranteed real returns of real money they supposedly protect with such brittle defenses? Either the operative definition of attack is too rather shallow to explain this inexplicable lack of attacking (i.e. something other than hashrate/stake is a major factor in the defense of these coins), or the expectation of return from said attack is rather too high.

You're a victim of social media propaganda. It's not your fault though. Most people have busy life and they don't have time to stay on top of all the drama so they only hear from "mainstream sources". The thing is, the original Bitcoin community leaders have control over the largest websites for Bitcoin related content (bitcointalk and /r/bitcoin subreddit and so on) and they control their message through their channels and censor anything about Bitcoin cash. So everything you hear about Bitcoin and Bitcoin cash is pretty much a result of censorship and propaganda, which is why you only hear about Bitcoin cash being a scam. But this is far from truth.

If you don't believe me, find the smartest people you know who are professional crypto investors, they will say they secretly hold bitcoin cash but never speak out because they will immediately be labeled as "scam investor", and nowadays character assassination is really scary on Twitter so most people who actually know stuff stay quiet.

The whole Bitcoin thing is meant to be forked, and that's the whole point--that's why Bitcoin as a whole is anti-fragile. If something doesn't work out with one approach, there will be another fork of Bitcoin that may succeed with a different approach, but the original Bitcoin holders--unless they're stupid enough to sell everything just because they want "the real bitcoin"--will keep holding the same amount of fork coins, so everybody wins.

As for the details on Bitcoin vs Bitcoin Cash, they just have different philosophies. Bitcoin wants to focus on stability whereas Bitcoin cash wants to focus on usability. None of them are "scams" and there's nothing wrong with each party. Some people have strong opinions towards either of the forks, but most old Bitcoin investors stay quiet and are just waiting out to see how it all ends, because they have nothing to lose. If Bitcoin wins, then good. If Bitcoin cash wins, that's also good because they have the same amount of coins.

Think about this for a moment. What would happen if Bitcoin Cash dies because "it's a scam", and the original Bitcoin is the only option left? And what if that approach doesn't work out? Then we are left with nothing. I think it's great that these two forks co-exist for now and have chance to prove themselves.

Out of all the scamcoins out there I wasn't aware that Bitcoin Cash had such a reputation, if anything it's one of the rare forks that actually seem to have a real technical reason behind it (the whole segwit vs. large block debate). Furthermore since it's a fork of the original Bitcoin chain the creators couldn't use the usual tricks to "pump and dump" where they pre-mine a ton of coins to prepare for the dump.

I mean I'm a cryptocurrency "hater" myself so as far as I'm concerned it's scams, greed, poor understanding of economics and technology all the way down but I'm surprised to see Bitcoin Cash singled out that way, it always seemed relatively reasonable to me (as far as cryptocurrencies can be at least). If anything the segwit/lightning network proponents did seem a bit disingenuous back then (pre-fork), presenting their technology as the panacea to Bitcoin's scaling problems while conveniently ignoring or hand waving practical issues with their proposed system (possible centralization, whether the system could genuinely remain usable at scale etc...). They also generally demonstrated the usefulness of the lightning network by always taking scenarios best suited to the system (recurrent coffee buys at starbucks for instance) instead of "worst case" situations where lightning made a whole lot less sense and had a ton more overhead. That's a common issue all over the cryptocurrency space however...

The discussion about Bitcoin Cash is slightly out of place here, but I think there are dozens of coins worse than it. I don't necessarily like Bitcoin Cash and their marketing shenanigans, but I think they represent a different take on Bitcoin scalability and definitely have a place in the crypto world.

>I’m surprised that any US exchange is allowed to list coins like Bitcoin Cash

It's ironic you would single out Bitcoin Cash as an attempt by the software devs to defraud people.

Take a look at how Ethereum, Bitcoin Core, or any of the top 10, 50, or really any cryptocoin, DAG, or blockchain inspired project works in regards to defrauding new users by extracting their wealth to enrich the early adopters.

The very nature of Satoshi's Proof-of-Work protocol is to establish a new oligarchy which exploits anyone without access to surplus capital that can be wasted on expensive random number generators for the mining protocol.

  One important point: if we actually include all 7 billion 
  people on the earth, most of whom have zero BTC or 
  Ethereum, the Gini coefficient is essentially 0.99+. And  
  if we just include all balances, we include many dust 
  balances which would again put the Gini coefficient at 
  0.99+. Thus, we need some kind of threshold here. The 
  imperfect threshold we picked was the Gini coefficient 
  among accounts with ≥185 BTC per address, and ≥2477 ETH 
  per address. So this is the distribution of ownership 
  among the Bitcoin and Ethereum rich with $500k as of July 
  2017.


  In what kind of situation would a thresholded metric like 
  this be interesting? Perhaps in a scenario similar to the 
  ongoing IRS Coinbase issue, where the IRS is seeking 
  information on all holders with balances >$20,000. 
  Conceptualized in terms of an attack, a high Gini 
  coefficient would mean that a government would only need 
  to round up a few large holders in order to acquire a 
  large percentage of outstanding cryptocurrency — and with 
  it the ability to tank the price.

  With that said, two points. First, while one would not 
  want a Gini coefficient of exactly 1.0 for BTC or ETH (as 
  then only one person would have all of the digital 
  currency, and no one would have an incentive to help boost 
  the network), in practice it appears that a very high 
  level of wealth centralization is still compatible with 
  the operation of a decentralized protocol. Second, as we 
  show below, we think the Nakamoto coefficient is a better 
  metric than the Gini coefficient for measuring holder 
  concentration in particular as it obviates the issue of 
  arbitrarily choosing a threshold.


  ...However, the maximum Gini coefficient has one obvious 
  issue: while a high value tracks with our intuitive notion 
  of a “more centralized” system, the fact that each Gini 
  coefficient is restricted to a 0–1 scale means that it 
  does not directly measure the number of individuals or 
  entities required to compromise a system.


  Specifically, for a given blockchain suppose you have a 
  subsystem of exchanges with 1000 actors with a Gini 
  coefficient of 0.8, and another subsystem of 10 miners 
  with a Gini coefficient of 0.7. It may turn out that 
  compromising only 3 miners rather than 57 exchanges may be 
  sufficient to compromise this system, which would mean the 
  maximum Gini coefficient would have pointed to exchanges 
  rather than miners as the decentralization bottleneck.


  Conversely, if one considers “number of distinct countries 
  with substantial mining capacity” an essential subsystem, 
  then the minimum Nakamoto coefficient for Bitcoin would 
  again be 1, as the compromise of China (in the sense of a 
  Chinese government crackdown on mining) would result in 
  >51% of mining being compromised.

also who would want to use Ethereum when 2/3's of the entire supply is owned by a few dozen anonymous oligarchs?

  Presale ICO / Premine ( max cost $0.50 USD per ETH  )
  = 72,009,990 ETH
  
  Total Supply today (Feb 23rd 2018)
   = 97,800,000 ETH

  Source:
  https://etherscan.io/stat/supply

How is this different than basically 95% of the stock market, including the pink sheets?