
SEC shows support for ICOs that are not obviously securities - petethomas
https://techcrunch.com/2017/09/14/sec-shows-support-for-icos-that-are-not-obviously-securities/
======
flunhat
I might be reading this wrong, but nothing in the article says that the SEC
_supports_ ICOs that are not obviously securities. Instead, the more
reasonable conclusion is that the SEC will go after the most flagrant
violators first, which isn't the same thing as the first statement.

It's not terribly surprising either. Regulatory agencies have limited
resources, so they must necessarily focus their efforts on actors that cause
the most damage or openly violate the rules. But it would be a stretch to say
they show support for all the other ICOs they don't go after.

------
craigc
If this isn’t clickbait then I don’t know what is. There is no new information
here, and I don’t see anywhere where it says that the SEC supports ICOs.

I do not know the author, but this is kind of an embarrassment to be
considered journalism.

A much better read would be Fred Wilson’s thoughts on the matter:

[http://avc.com/2017/09/the-china-ico-ban/](http://avc.com/2017/09/the-china-
ico-ban/)

------
readams
A better headline might be "SEC has not ruled on ICOs that are not obviously
securities but there is reason to suspect they might not rule favorably"

------
sillysaurus3
Why would anyone put money into your ICO if it isn't a security and doesn't
give you some kind of "advantage"? Like, either your token will raise in value
or your token gives the holder some special ability. Lacking either of those,
why would anyone pay ETH for it?

~~~
nostrademons
> your token gives the holder some special ability.

It's that category that the SEC appears uninterested in. Some ICOs (like
Brave's) are tokens that entitle you to goods or services on the platform in
the future. These are effectively currency scrip (or "gift cards" in the
article's terminology), and the SEC seems to consider them outside its
jurisdiction.

~~~
flunhat
Anyone ever play clash of clans? ICOs that don't confer any securities-type
value on the buyer (no ownership stake, entitlement to a share future profits,
etc.) are basically just gems from clash of clans. You buy them in order to
interact with the service, that's it.

I suppose the only functional difference between ICOs and gems from clash of
clans is that you can resell your tokens on a secondary market because of the
decentralized nature of the system. But so what?? It's a solution to a problem
that never existed.

------
ringaroundthetx
the article doesn't say that

------
outoftacos
This article is terrible, full of opinion and hearsay. Why on earth did it
shoot up to #2? I get that if you're invested in all these awful coins you
want others to buy in too, because otherwise your coins are worthless, but
still.

~~~
dogruck
HN is dominated by cryptocurrency bulls.

