you have to:
1) like the idea
2) trust the management team
3) hope infrastructure gets built around it so that there could be perpetual demand for these tokens
4) hope the regulators play ball
and if any thing incompetent happens with the management team, all liquidity evaporates permanently, no matter if the problem and solution were sound ideas
when really you just want to be able to "like the idea" and let it flourish on its own, where a management team doesn't need to exist, or a management team can be hotswapped for anyone
The crypto community continues to speed-run the history of finance.
I think it is making it better than your classist dystopia.
In the same day:
The US Treasury just talked about returning to a period of private currencies, but global this time, in response to proliferation of crypto assets being used as stores of value, currency and collateral. Central banks can still provide liquidity to the market. The unbanked have access to a global economy.
The US President gave an advertisement to bitcoin and Libra.
The SEC approved a digital Reg A+ offering, which is a rubric for all other ones.
US Congress members actively talking about the Token Taxonomy Act together to help all branches of the government adapt faster.
Nobody is banned from investing in early-stage businesses except by virtue of their level of risk tolerance, and some of us angel invest regularly. However, just opening up access to everyone doesn't change the fact that a legitimate, well-funded company with great traction and a great idea (the kind of equity you want) has no interest in selling to some random small-time individual with no experience to bring to bear. As a founder, in early stages, I'd want smart money. Just as nobody was required to purchase $UBER nobody is required to sell shares of their startup to small-time investors who have no idea what they're doing and provide no value. I predict if accreditation rules were removed, the same pool of smart money continues to get all the wins, but now dumb money holds all the bags.
Yes, it's possible to make bad investing decisions. That certainly doesn't mean ICOs are a good idea.
Getting rich isn't easy and opening up unregulated access to crap securities isn't going to change that.
(1) A program that meets that vast majority of your requirements exists and exhibits terrible adverse selection issues, so you propose... expanding it? In the hopes it gets... better? Any thoughts on why that would happen?
(2) The $200K salary line is "magical" but does represent middle-class in 100% of communities in the United States. IMO it should have been indexed to inflation ($3-4M in annual income inflation adjusted), bringing it quite a bit higher. You can also qualify on the basis of $1M in assets excluding your principal residence. This provides adequate buffer in the event your investments fail outright, which the vast majority of early stage investments do. It's the same reason a 20.9 year old can't buy beer. You draw the line somewhere, for better or for worse.
(3) To the best of my knowledge there are no legal repercussions for you for investing as a non-accredited investor, though there may be for the company for failing to follow proper procedure.
(4) These laws weren't brought in because too many poor were getting rich too fast and there wasn't enough room for all the yachts in Boston Harbor. It was due to large-scale speculation literally causing the great depression .
(5) Remind me who pays for the welfare programs when people who aren't in a place to take financial risks, the most desperate usually, are pushed into insolvency? Taxpayers. That's why taxpayers also get a say in who can invest.
(6) Your argument reads a lot like the people who want to kill off the EPA because the rivers haven't caught fire in a while. There's a reason they don't catch fire.
(1) According to Art. 10 Para. 3 of the Swiss Federal Collective Investment Schemes Act (CISA), qualified investors are considered:
(e) High net worth individuals
(3) A high net worth individual is someone who can confirm in writing that they directly or indirectly have net financial investments of at least 2 million Swiss francs.
Either way, you've again side-stepped every salient point. It's fine to have a philosophical disagreement but we should be able to discuss the facts at hand. Philosophically I don't think the government should be able to tell people what they can and can't dump into the rivers because it's in their interests only to drop safe stuff in there. Reality, however, indicates that in fact that's an awful idea and we shouldn't let them.
Sadly, facts get in the way of philosophy. That's why we have regulations.
Either way you fall prey to the classic libertarian fallacy, that an individual doesn't affect the society around them in any way. Yeah you go broke investing in the South Seas 2.0 company, or BTC at $19K. Cool. You own and sell property at a loss, now you affect your neighbors property values. Now you're on welfare, and on medicaid, and now all of society has to pay for your poor investing decisions. The law is how society mitigates this risk.
It's not, but that's not the point. Offering unfettered access to investing with zero regulation is exactly how more of the Bernie Madoff's of the world would exist. You think the rich are getting richer under the current system now? Just imagine the number of grifter's that would get richer by swindling large swathes of common folk.
No one dumped their stock on the public. They offered to sell it and someone offered to purchase it.
(Granted, "the public" has some ownership because it likely ended up in several funds that people are invested in).
But on an individual transaction level, someone sought to buy it at a price and someone else sought to sell it at that price. What's the problem with that transaction?
That's how every IPO, and to a greater extent - "the market," works.