Just like Mathematicians and Engineers were leaving the soviet union in droves to pursuit a better future.
You're shouting baseless opinion. Over its repetitions, moderated [1] and well-cited [2] responses [3] have been repeatedly [4] levied against it [5]. Yet the outburst never changes. You're talking for the sake of talking, not to discuss.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15791135
[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15766911
[3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15791454
If leaving US jurisdiction reduces the capital markets that are most important to them, then I doubt they will decide that it's worthwhile to do so just for the sake of being able do ICOs.
Despite these long-standing rules, the US still seems to do just fine attracting new corporations.
I really do not care for the accredited investor scam.
I guess the lesson is to do a fair launch and run nicehash to control a large percentage of the network. Then you don't have to abide by SEC regulation as the coin does not represent a centralized organization.
Because people, who are the important factor here and not your burnt CPU cycles, live in those localities and have generally agreed to live in this thing called "society" where regulations are made within that society's jurisdiction.
A global decentralized currency should be beholden to every local regulation in which it is used, since the users fall under that jurisdiction - if it's not compatible with local regulation, then it should stay away from that locality and the people there.
In particular, ICOs should care about USA regulation if they want to attract money from people in USA; they can freely ignore SEC iff they keep their activities outside of USA and don't attempt to market their "investment" to customers in USA.
I dunno why can't you declare your house an independent country and live under your own rules?
It did not die, different people are now picking up the chain and making it a more valuable currency.
The point is not that these currencies are "on a computer", the point is that they represent a collective interest that lives beyond borders.
My point was that there are regularization factors in the market that exist without a centralized organization rubber stamping actions. Of course, that doesn't fit the narrative that people, especially the poor and intelligent, must be protected from themselves.
My point is that there is no reason to not have the disclosure and reporting regulations in place. You really have not countered that. And claiming that there is a narrative about protecting people from themselves really doesn't work when we're talking about regulations designed to disclose the information that would allow them to make those decisions.
Feel free to buy lottery tickets or gamble, just don't let us catch you investing in a startup seed round.
People keep spouting that argument, and I'm utterly unconvinced of its relevance. Namely because you're arguing against the very things that would compel disclosure of the information required to make an informed decision. The other two things you mentioned have that information provided.
We wouldn't want the poor hurting themselves.
Coins represent a better approach, one not walled off to the general public. Coins can represent concepts or goals that live beyond a centralized organization providing documentation. Of course there is vested interest in regulation. Accredited investors love the walled gardens.
I love how quickly people forget history then come crying to daddy government when they get the paddling they so richly deserve from a silver tongue devil who parted them with their money.