The only innovation that tokens bring to securities is reducing the cost of recording who owns what shares. Which is certainly important, in fact one of the most important innovations since the 1400s, but the idea that this new feature would have any impact whatsoever on the interpretation of our existing securities laws is insane.

No it is not. I ran an OTC co and saw the manipulation first hand. You are incorrect. https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=KasianFranks&next=14...

I didn't say it eliminates the need for third-party auditing, which it doesn't, only that it reduces the cost.

It not only reduces the cost, it keeps people honest, which is what humans like Jamie Dimon and some investors do not like.

> which is what humans like Jamie Dimon and some investors do not like

There are plenty of people on this thread (myself included) who believe regulators are overdue in cracking down on this space. No need to invoke a bogeyman.

They should have cracked down on banks (too big to fail, if you remember) before ICOs and crypto. Lesson learned.

> That 70 year old law is based on financial models that have been settled for far longer though

No, it's based on the language of a statute that's about a decade older.

Now, the statute may be based on older financial models, but that doesn't control the case law, and disrupting the financial model doesn't, in and of itself, amend the statute underlying the case law.