Accredited investors requirement is what allows one not to be a subject to Blue Sky laws. We did not have it before Blue Sky laws were added. Let me assure you civilized societies need to have a separation between 82 year old grandma Suzi and Paris Hilton.

> Accredited investors requirement is what allows one not to be a subject to Blue Sky laws.

You think its a fair trade to lock 95% of Americans out of the investment market in order to protect the elderly?

New law: accredited investing means passing a 1 week course to obtain an investment license, which must be renewed bianually.

Now we can keep Grandma Suzy safe (because she hasn't passed the class) without locking 95% of Americans out of the investment market.

I do not, frankly, care. Regulation should be uniform. If we do not care about Grandma Suzi being swindled by investment peddlers, we should allow people to invest into ICO and buyer beware. If we want to protect Grandma Suzi, we have rules and if a hot shot ICO investor wanna be happen to be hit by those rules so be it.

Are you account for the damage done by restricting investment into this?

They say as much money moved into ICO's in the last 6 months as VC funding in the valley. To the very least, thats double the funding for tech startups: higher wages, more founders and higher absolute investment returns.

The tragedy is that scam ICO's make it because they cant put it into better investments due to regulation. Its the classic case of a damaging restriction.

Yes, I do. ICOs are scams.

And in good part provoked by the regulations you are in principle protecting..the people that put money into the ICO's most likely cannot legally invest in any startup in the U.S.

Of course they can:

they (a) lie on their attestation and (b) waive their right to sue