Re:Initial Coin Offerings Horrify a Former S.E.C. Regulator
by banderman on Monday November 27, 2017 @04:42PM
(#15791733)
The track record of humanity's decision making indicates that your statement is not accurate for a significant portion of the population.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Initial Coin Offerings Horrify a Former S.E.C. Regulator
by BearGoesChirp on Monday November 27, 2017 @05:17PM
(#15792108)
Where do we draw the limit at limiting adults for their own good?
Re:Initial Coin Offerings Horrify a Former S.E.C. Regulator
by mindcrime on Monday November 27, 2017 @05:49PM
(#15792391)
Initiation of force or fraud.
Re:Initial Coin Offerings Horrify a Former S.E.C. Regulator
by BearGoesChirp on Monday November 27, 2017 @06:00PM
(#15792493)
How does the above scenario of limiting who can invest fall under these?
Re:Initial Coin Offerings Horrify a Former S.E.C. Regulator
by mindcrime on Monday November 27, 2017 @07:32PM
(#15793176)
It doesn't. :-)
Re:Initial Coin Offerings Horrify a Former S.E.C. Regulator
by eternalban on Monday November 27, 2017 @05:12PM
(#15792057)
Curious:
Does that also apply to "democratic" processes?
Should only "accredited citizens" have the right to vote?
Re:Initial Coin Offerings Horrify a Former S.E.C. Regulator
by fooker on Tuesday November 28, 2017 @04:20AM
(#15795631)
Is that truly a bad idea?
Having to pass a test to demonstrate you understand the policy choices and how they affect you could be a good idea if done impartially.
Re:Initial Coin Offerings Horrify a Former S.E.C. Regulator
by eternalban on Wednesday November 29, 2017 @09:31AM
(#15807011)
Well, yes, it does have some merit but "done impartially" is the hair in the ointment, isn't it.
But to the point, categorical denial of access to a participatory space -- here based on your bank balance -- is akin to denying voting rights based on gender or color.