fowlerpower

I agree with you that the SEC is there to protect the public.

You are incorrectly saying that ICOs are a Ponzi scheme. When they are in fact too new to be labeled as anything. If they were in fact all Ponzi Schemes then people would already be in jail.

Secondly the SEC is there to balance both sides of the equation. Companies interests and the public dumping money into scams.

Look the ICO space is way too young for all the judgment people are passing on here. The SEC clearly wants to let this play out. No one has gone to jail yet.

The government has already started to relax the ability for non accredited investors to invest in startups and that was under the last administration. These rules are recent but they are there, they are very limited though and ICOs blow the top off of those rules.

ICOs are forcing the SECs hand and I think it show cases the interest that exist in the public to get into these early stage startups. I won't be surprised if the rules are relaxed even further to legalize these types of coins even if they are considered securities, especially under this administration.

Everyone is saying that you are limiting yourself by offering an ICO. You are giving away zero equity for the promise that your product and service will offer these people something in most cases, that is just like a kickstarter. Furthermore, nothing stops you from raising money after the ICO.

Anyway, this is a fantastic new vehicle for startups and I believe it will absolutely change the game. The VCs are a little mad because they are being shut out of the best rounds, where they would normally get the most equity.

At the end of the day what matters most is if startups can start get funding and hire people and add value to the economy. That is what the SEC has to balance with the public interest on the other end.

The thing is that Google has absolutely gone down questionable path from their early days.

It is a little unfair to think this problem exists only within Google. Time and time again we are reminded why corporations will evolve to become as greedy and as protective of their turf expansive of their power and monopolistic as they can get, even if good people are running them. It is the system itself that does this, corporations evolve to survive and to thrive. That in of itself isn't a bad thing but you need checks and balances. Things like the Supreme Court saying that Corporations are people or all the money pouring into our political process those are things that have to change.

Even the best of them will eventually become the worst of them. Google is now evil for sure, no doubt about that, but there have been and there will be many others.

A lot of people are calling these things Scams. People arent wrong and to a certain degree they do attract the "quick buck" type to them. Keep in mind though that these are also very useful for companies to get the Digitial Currency and block chain into the hands of the masses without some of this money, which large parts of that may be burned, will yield some killer apps.

The people doing an ICO do it to raise a bunch of money, much like a kick starter campaign. The people buying an ICO buy it for a quick buck and a lot of times they end up selling these coins from the ICO for 10x, see BATs.

The allure for people starting a company is that you can raise millions and give 0% of your company away. Some people will scam, it's true maybe a lot will, but some will undoubtedly start something big and will want to do more than just scam.

Tesla ain't going nowhere. A lot of people are missing the point as to why the stock is so high.

It's so high because it's the future, not because of current sales. If it's the future then the argument needs to be a little different if your hoping to convince people to dump it.

Everyone working on JavaScript right now lives in a bubble. Take a look at how back end languages have evolved and that's your future, you can try to deny it but your going to go the way C did and Java did. You can cite openness and the web and all these other things that make some kind of sense but history is against you.

In reality those arguments don't hold water. In reality our field is 30 years+ old and there is some maturity in the way things are done. All this crazy shit of rewrite everything all the time will just eventually tire people out and people will cut this redo an entire framework just because out.

JavaScript is one of the most important languages around right now and pretty soon the adults are going to be taking it away from the kids. Just as an FYI, this is another example of that. Too many important decisions are happening without much thought about what's there already.

I don't know maybe I'm wrong and maybe this time will be different but I've been around long enough. I learned the ins and outs of angular only to be told "fuck that" shortly after. It all seems very wrong too me but maybe you can tell me otherwise?

Exactly. I agree with you, you should always lawyer up and never say anything your lawyer does not advise.

This story is fascinating for tech people everywhere and we should all pay attention.

We all have big dreams of starting our own company some day (I know do) and many of us work for big corporations that would rather we never go anywhere and work for as little as possible. (admittedly the markets are forcing them to pay us a lot but they aren't doing it out of good will).

The outcome of this will teach us all very valuable lessons. I can't be the only one who is a little paranoid that if I start my own shit I'll be sued or that I may even be sued for some of the side projects I'm working on even though I've never taken any code or resources from my company.

Why not the contents? What happens when most content is not over a secure connection such e.g. Over HTTP? Could they not inspect the content?

It sure seems like they could. For most people most of the internet is still insecure.

This is pretty cool and encouraging.

I do think if your after hypergrowth you need some money though.

The article gives me anxiety. It gives me anxiety that people can be held at our borders for hours and sometimes days (in my country non the less). All because some junior border officer did not understand the visa type well enough. How can they not even apologize? How can they not even acknowledge these types of errors.

Will they do this to us when we travel abroad on a tourist visa?