Re:SEC Shuts Down Munchee ICO
by vkou on Tuesday December 12, 2017 @01:39PM
(#15908178)
It's mindboggling how people are perfectly OK with raising 50-200 million dollars with an ICO, when they don't have a team, or a working product, but they can't possibly afford the expense and hassle of compliance, auditing and disclosure.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
There are two things here:
* It's not OK to raise 200M with no team and product;
* Compliance only creates obstructions, not protection.
RegA+ companies don't require SEC proxy statements, director and 10% stockholder reporting, SOX independent audits, SOX internal controls documentations, or SOX CEO certification. Pretty much all they're required to do is create a quarterly audited financial report. How is that "obstruction, not protection"? What kind of company that ordinary people should invest in can't produce an audited financial report? Charities and nonprofits product audited financials!
Thanks for bringing this up. I didn't realize just how lax the rules regarding being a Regulation A Plus company are.
You don't need to be an accredited investor to invest in one. You just need to limit your investment to no more then 10% of your salary, or net worth, whichever is greater.
There are currently over 150 Reg A+ companies in the United States. I am eagerly waiting for people lambasting how the accredited investor rule keeps out little people... To explain why little people aren't falling head over heels to invest in RegA+ corps.