I’ve got a few projects going on at the moment, as per the norm. There are two particular projects that involve me learning a bit more about coding. I am no developer, but to accomplish what needs to get done, I need to be able to get further down the path of showing and explaining to the coders exactly what I want to accomplish.
I used to just draw a sketch of what I wanted the client interface to look like and I assumed the Dev team would figure it out.
I then learned to show what information was needed to get to the analysis/output that I wanted to show
Soon I realized I need to show where that raw data is, add the formulas that are needed to get to the outcome/analysis, and show the visual of the output.
Now I have learned, get down to the minutia of every step of the process and add as much detail as possible. If I do it correctly and fully, the only thing left for the dev team to do is convert my instructions into the actual code.
In another example of how global regulators are using lessons learned from the retail FX & CFD industry, more and more financial institutions are cutting off crypto exchanges (and all crypto service providers) from banking access. There seems to be few formal rules that are forcing banks to take these step, but there is clearly a behind-the-scenes push.
But I wonder is it just the volatility of cryptocurency trading that is causing concern to regulators? Is it the fact that they can not easily point to intrinsic value in many ICO’s? Is it the Anti-Money Laundering aspect?
Tangentially…..there is a bit of a catch 22 going on. If and as more merchants start to accept cryptocurrency as a form of payment, volatility will drop and intrinsic value will be easier to define. But cutting off fiat to crypto conversion will slow this acceptance rate due to reduced supply of buyers who have crypto to use in purchases.
As for the AML…I get it. Crypto’s are real tough to follow and to identify; they are designed that way. But so is cash. So if the regulators overarching goal is control of money flow and knowledge of transaction participant ID’s….then they will keep pushing for fewer and fewer, globally connected institutions. And that is what I do not want to see.
If I set up a Silver mining operation and sell you a promise that if I extract some silver, you get a percentage of the Silver I extract, then that is pretty clearly a Security.
Many in the ICO community want their ICO’s NOT to be labeled (and regulated) as Securities. They argue because the underlying asset is some sort of commodity (or a specific, pre-named “thing”), the ICO’s are not Securities but are Commodities. And therefore the ICO is a lot more like a futures/options contract than a Security.
Options and Futures have a lot less regulations to deal with than Securities. In fact, Over-The-Counter (“OTC”) derivatives are the last tranche of tradeable instruments that are not executed/reported on an exchange (though many are soon to be reported to a clearing agency post-trade)
But since there is no guaranteed commodity/”thing” to be given to the buyer of the ICO, then is sure sounds like a Security to me. The buyer of the ICO is taking a risk that the underlying plan will be legally and efficiently executed by the ICO sellers. Futures contracts are bought and sold on regulated Exchanges which are built and managed on the premise that there could (and sometimes is) an exchange of tangible assets at the expiration of a contract. Options are similar.
OK. What if instead of of a tangible commodity/”thing” promised to the ICO buyer, the buyer receives a digital token with it’s own set of rights and claims against the issuer? Such as, “These GoogleTokens are worth 10 click-throughs anytime in the next 10 years.” Well then it is really a company (in this fictitious case, Google) that is booking revenues early, not a financing transaction for the company.
There will be some instances of an ICO that could be thought of as a Commodity. But the vast majority of ICO’s are really just a way to fund a business idea with little oversight.
I believe in the 2nd amendment. I believe that a population has the right to bear arms for two reasons. The first is attack by outside enemies of the state in which an armed population is a deterrent and resistance towards the outside attackers. The second case is the rare case that the citizens need to rise up and forcefully take back power from a government that has abducted power from those citizens. (Of course a preferred method of ensuring a government entity does not take too much power from the people it serves is by the citizens taking an active part in politics and the political process.)
I am not a weapons expert but in neither of those cases are hand guns or automatic weapons necessary.
If anyone has a rational, scientific argument that the number of and easy access to guns in this country had benefited anyone other than the gun manufacturers, I am willing to listen. But until I hear a valid argument in favor of guns, I remain convinced that the US as a country and society is worse off due to the prevalence of guns.