News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:SEC Charges Kik With Conducting $100M Unregistered ICO by shawnz on Tuesday June 04, 2019 @04:35PM (#20098965)
Why should penalties necessarily bankrupt the company? Shouldn't the penalty be proportional to the damage they created by doing things improperly?
Re:SEC Charges Kik With Conducting $100M Unregistered ICO by PierceJoy on Tuesday June 04, 2019 @05:02PM (#20099193)
There needs to be a punitive aspect as well. Simply taking away their profit doesn't discourage this in the future, as being caught isn't certain.

I'm not saying the company should be bankrupted, but it has to hurt them enough that they wouldn't want to risk trying again.

Re:SEC Charges Kik With Conducting $100M Unregistered ICO by httpsterio on Tuesday June 04, 2019 @05:44PM (#20099571)
Hurt them enough so that nobody will try the same again, not just kik. But then again, bankrupting them isn't the wisest choice, if they pay enough taxes and their offences isn't too severe, it would be better to have them around employing people and paying taxes and wages vs it doesn't exist at all.
Re:SEC Charges Kik With Conducting $100M Unregistered ICO by tw04 on Tuesday June 04, 2019 @06:05PM (#20099714)
If I have nothing and rob a bank, should I get get to keep half? Why should the penalty bankrupt me?
Re:SEC Charges Kik With Conducting $100M Unregistered ICO by shawnz on Tuesday June 04, 2019 @06:14PM (#20099767)
No, that's a much different situation. Kik could have acted legally and still made a profit on this idea, although maybe less. In your example, clearly there is no "legal" way in which you could have robbed the bank
Re:SEC Charges Kik With Conducting $100M Unregistered ICO by tw04 on Tuesday June 04, 2019 @08:01PM (#20100358)
In their own words they couldn't make a profit...

As for their being no legal way to rob a bank, there are a whole bunch of folks from the 2009 mortgage crises who would beg to differ.