Yes - certain filings are confidential while they are 'in process.' They then get released in batches on specific release dates, to the entire world, all at once. In particular, IPO registrations may be done confidentially in early stages. The information that is present in such filings is often valuable.
What's he's advocating is all software being public domain, not MIT.
Copyleft licenses could be potentially be replaced by viral contracts... but frankly, I'd take the tradeoff of no copyright and no copyleft over the hellish system of copyright we have now.
First, humans are still necessary - to build the factories, to operate them, to act as security guards - and the cost of those humans is still lower.
Second - all the other costs in low wage countries are also a lot lower. Combine that with how absurdly cheap international shipping is and there is no reason to relocate the manufacture of low-margin goods to the US until you are really starting to talk about the costs of automation being so efficient the extra pennies on shipping will make a difference in earnings. Given the expense of maintaining real assets in the U.S., i.e., buildings (utilities, maintenance, insurance, taxes, building), this is likely to be a while.
"First, humans are still necessary - to build the factories, to operate them, to act as security guards - and the cost of those humans is still lower."
A lot of this work will be automated in the coming decades to the point where the effect of wage costs is marginal. In addition, the salaries in developing countries will continue to increase, eventually catching up Western nations. At that point the main factors are probably tax/import policies, price of enercy etc.
They are not talking about regulating regular cryptocurrencies, which are openly a risky investment.
ICOs like this are trying to defraud and scam people, making them believe that their token is something it's not.
I don't think any honest investor and/or developer wants the second case to be unregulated, nor gains anything from it being so.
If anything, regular cryptocurrency enthusiasts are loosing because of this, because the whole crypto space gains bad notoriety because of these ICOs, and people who cannot tell a difference between ICO, an ERC20 token, a private address, bitcoin, bcash, litecoin, etc, etc - people who think they are all the same - will just form a faulty opinion that since there are scam ICOs out there, that means that the whole crypto space is a scam.
Everyone would win if these scams were regulated and punished.
You can simultaneously hate scam ICOs and still not want most other aspects of cryptocurrencies to be regulated. There are lots of different regulations that different people find acceptable.
I agree - I'm an attorney. But are we picking and choosing here? Because my bet is, and has been for quite sometime, that when all is said and done, the 'regulations' we are talking about are those that already exist and are applied to securities.
Yes, we are picking and choosing. We’re picking out individuals that are motivated to love unregulated financial instruments because it’s easier to defraud the populace and choosing to shut them down
I'm sure that most of securities law will apply, but there might be new opportunities provided by the tech that need to be worked out - for instance funding protocol development.
The innovation also might also shift political attention to some drawbacks with the current regulatory regime that could use updating - for instance the rather blunt instrument of the accredited investor regime, or the custodian requirement.
And the regulators will have to deal with changes to their own incentive structures - for instance the opportunity for regulatory arbitrage.
For all the mistrust of banks and regulators in Bitcoinland, having those institutions take you seriously is what winning looks like.
Woah, back up here. Cryptocurrencies are not unregulated, they are very much regulated. Those people you are referring to like the fact that they are self-regulating. If they were completely unregulated then bitcoin would have never gotten off of the ground.
I personally think that cryptocurrencies could do for a lot more regulation, not just from governments but also from public advocacy groups. We need to be carful about the kind of regulations.
I would gladly pay a substantial premium for an ISP that was a co-op (i.e., subscribers are also 'owners') or run as a not for profit. Not for profit is probably easier.
Hell, I would donate my time as a lawyer to helping out.
How serious are you about this? I've built networks for small to medium sized ISPs using wireless and some wired technology and the Internet co-op idea is something I've thought about a lot. Happy to chat more email in my profile.
Are there inexpensive technologies that allow line of site communication across 5-8 miles? Something that could be erected on the top of a barn or windmill, that would mesh and route among adjacent nodes?
Something like that would allow communication across the countryside and allow communities to interconnect irrespective of the existing monopoly infrastructure.
Yes, what you're describing is a WISP* and they're fairly common in suburban and rural communities in the US (and other places I just know the US best). Some of the companies that make equipment for this are Ubiquiti, Mimosa, BaiCells and Cambium.
I think the point was that even if stock exchanges were totally unregulated, normal laws and regulations could still be applied to stock ownership. (And even if they weren't, common law on property ownership still would)
> I thought the whole point of crypto currency was that it WASN'T regulated and so how is the government able to do this, let alone say this with any authority?
The SEC regulates securities. Cryptocurrency (arguably) meets many different definitions that would qualify at as one of several types of security (or future, or commodity). Therefore, the SEC has the power to regulate cryptocurrency.
To put it another way, the government already has authority. Trying to engineer around the authority of the government is the intent of (some) cryptocurrency designers - but it doesn't work that way. For all the same reasons that 'sovereign citizens' are wrong and (comically) misguided.
The government exists. It has authority. Denying either of these two things is utterly and totally delusional - not to mention childish and indefensible. If you really are trying to argue that the SEC has no authority to begin with - well, good luck with that, and have fun talking to your lawyer through bars or reinforced glass.
The debate is about whether cryptocurrency has been adequately designed to legally circumvent the legal requirements that would make it subject to current regulation. In other words, whether, according to the rules of the SEC, it does not meet the SEC's definition of what it regulates (or the FTC's, or the CTFC's for that matter).
As of now, the prevailing legal opinion is that it has not and that cryptocurrency meets many different definitions of security, future or commodity. Is it possible to change this? Possibly, but it is an engineering issue and it requires working within the bounds of the law - not just pretending that these authorities do not and cannot have actual jurisdiction.
It will be quite interesting to see how institutional investors and the CTFC come down on this whole phenomenon. I do not share the unbridled optimism of many of my peers.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/07/business/dealbook/sec-ini...