Topic: [ANN][NOTE]DNotes - Celebrating DNotes 3rd Birthday - Forum Now Open - page 218. (Read 814541 times)

Quote from: RJF on June 16, 2015, 10:05:29 AM

Maybe they could even be limited to what markets their coin, stock, etc could be sold on similar to the lowest level of the stock market being the OTC / pink sheets. Everyone knows those are the most risky stocks to buy.

I hadn't thought of that, but I can see it working. Certain markets/exchanges would only be open to grade A businesses, while others might be open to C and D businesses. There's a demand for both, as we've seen with penny stocks. It's just that people buying penny stocks are prepared to take greater risks than those buying stocks of more established companies.

Ultimately, I think the goal of regulation or licensing or standardization should be to ensure that people are buying what they think they are buying. You want to avoid the situation where a consumer believes in good faith that he or she is buying stock of a well established company when he is actually buying something totally different, such as a high risk stock of an upstart company.

I don't know if anyone here has followed the whole GAW Miners story, which I got caught up in, but basically what happened to me was that I bought what I was led to believe was hosted mining equipment, which then morphed into some kind of glorified staking wallet. Regardless of how legitimate the staking wallet is/was, the problem I have is that I bought one thing that turned out to be an entirely different thing. I would have preferred to have bought what I intended to buy in the first place.

Regulation, in my opinion, can help consumers be clear on what they are buying by setting standards for such things. Once everything has been defined and put into its appropriate category, then the choice can be left up to the consumer. I may choose to buy a stock that's designated as high risk (and have to go to the special place to buy it). That is fine. I assume the risk and responsibility for that. What I hope the regulation does for me is help me avoid the scenario where I think I'm buying a stable and low risk S&P 500 stock but what I get instead is a penny stock (and then the stock goes belly up).

Sorry to hear you got caught up in the GAW mining fiasco. That is a good example of why we need consumer protection and regulation.

DNotes

legendary

Activity: 1932

Merit: 1111

DNotes

With the news and talk about regulation going on recently, I believe it may be a good idea if we voice our opinion on what favorable and fair regulation would look like from our standpoint. Many of us know the industry pretty well and understand what the major risk factors are for consumer security with digital currency.

In your own opinion, what would you consider fair regulation to protect consumers without hindering advancement?

I'm not an expert, but here's how I would approach it.

1. Set up a set of standards related to website security, amount of funds backing up user accounts, insurance coverage (if there ever is such a thing), and various other reasonable precautions that large sites which hold user funds should be taking.
2. Next, set up a grading system of some sort. So an A rated company adheres to the strictest standards, whereas a C or D rated company adheres to more lenient standards.
3. The conditions which must be met for each grade are clearly and publicly posted so everyone knows.
4. Companies can post their grade based on what standards they are following. Potential users see it and can make an informed decision based on their own risk tolerance. Some consumers may choose to only deal with A and B companies. Others may be fine with doing some business with C and D companies.
5. Adhering to these standards is completely voluntary. No one forces any business to meet those standards. However, if they don't meet them, they don't get to advertise themselves as an A rated company. They may lose a lot of potential customers but most likely save on their up front costs. Companies can at any time "upgrade" to a higher grade by meeting that grade level's standards.
6. Standards would be determined by some sort of group of knowledgeable industry leaders and whoever else might make up these types of groups.
7. There is some sort of neutral auditing group whose job it is to review companies and determine which standards they are meeting and issue them their "grade." This auditing group also posts all participating companies and their grades on a website that anyone can read, so that companies claiming to have a certain grade can be checked against the auditing group's list. That site could also be educational about what the standards mean and why they are important, and can also warn people about certain types of sites which are plain never going to make the grade and why (Bitcoin doublers, for example).
8. Everything is done as transparently as possible.
9. A company that uses other companies (for example a retail site that has a 3rd party payment gateway) should have a page where all their third parties and their grades are posted as well.

The bottom line is that in my opinion, the kind of "regulation" that really serves the public is standardization which makes it very clear how a service measures up in terms of various conditions the general public would or should care about. A service can either make the grade or not but it has the right to exist and conduct business regardless. But the company making the grade is likely to attract more customers.

I'm not a huge fan of companies being "forced" to make a certain standardization grade, because I believe that potential customers have the right and ability to make an informed decision. I do believe that such criteria should be well known and it should be very transparent how grades are determined and given out and then the public decides which companies to patronize based on those grades. Basically, the government or some kind of regulatory body can really help everyone by setting and enforcing standards (or at least overseeing that process), and making it clear how businesses measure up. But then leave the choice to the consumer. Maybe I will only trade on an A rated exchange but someone else might be fine with a B rated exchange because the fees are lower. Startup businesses should have the freedom to exist and gradually "level up" on their grades so as not to be priced out of even starting. They would have to work harder to earn their customers' trust but at least they could be conducting business while raising funds to meet various criteria. A reputable online business is going to voluntarily take certain precautions to make sure their customers' accounts and funds are as secure as possible, but probably won't be able to start off using the absolute most state of the art security systems. That should be fine as long as what they do have (and don't have) is clearly disclosed, or at least what grade they have.

"Startup businesses should have the freedom to exist and gradually "level up" on their grades so as not to be priced out of even starting." I think the whole concept of levelling up is brilliant, wiser! Maybe they could even be limited to what markets their coin, stock, etc could be sold on similar to the lowest level of the stock market being the OTC / pink sheets. Everyone knows those are the most risky stocks to buy.

Chase/Wiser; totally agree here. And one thing really stands out, website security. I, personally, would put very little regulation on the "coin" itself and focus more on the security of websites dealing with the public, especially exchanges. I tend to compare crypto with cash when discussing human interaction. I can still hand you a dollar, or one hundred thousand dollars for that matter, in private, you to me, without jumping through any hoops. In other words, I can transfer wealth to you without regulation. The whole regulatory nightmare exists on a previous level where you obtain that cash, and in the banks where you "store" it.

In other words, the end transaction of moving money from me to you, in private has no inescapable regulatory burden. If I remain unbanked and outside the financial system, regulations do not really effect me as long as I don't need to enter that system.

I realize that in real life this is near impossible but, there are plenty people doing it even here in the US. These people live off the grid and outside what you and I consider "society". Not really a bad thing but, not for most of us.

Getting back to the issue at hand, in crypto, its the "last mile" that is the problem. There will always be bad actors, it's human nature and it's easy to take advantage of someone hiding behind a website. Also, I don't believe in KYC and AML laws, basically, they are useless and present an extreme barrier to entry to our our industry. They raise the bar so high over the heads of entrepreneurs that innovation and free thinking are eliminated and replaced with "the same old crap" from established entities pretending to be startups.

My vision of fair and balanced regulation and crypto business startup would go something like this:

Prerequisites for the business,

1. If you want to start an online crypto business, identify yourself. No handles or nicks, use real names.
2. Clean, verified background check, no criminals allowed.
3. Prove you have the resources to cover your proposed operation, put up a bond or guarantee reserves large enough to cover possible customer losses.
4. Have a solid business plan, not just an idea.
5. If more than sole proprietor, incorporate, LLC, etc for legitimacy and your own protection.
6. Apply for and obtain the license described below.

Government, (I would prefer one licensing agency for the country but, we all know this is not possible)

1. It's ok for states to issue their own license but, the fees must be fair and the wording must include the ability to recognize another states regulations without having to obtain a license in a state other than the one the crypto business resides in. This could be federal but does not have to be. States could form a consortium or similiar agency for uniform regulation across all 50 US states.

2. Be reasonable. It doesn't cost $5000.00 to verify information, make a database entry and issue a piece of paper. And, use a 5 yr renewal base at a lower cost than the initial license.

3. Require the basics not the world. Include 1 through 6 above and allow self policing for AML and KYC requirements. Set a transaction amount where this reporting would kick in but realize that due to the very nature of the technology, traditional reporting is not going to work for most crypto businesses.

Again, the biggest issue I see is the rush towards applying existing, archaic regulations to crypo especially when it is not even possible to meet those requirements. And, right along with this is very real possibility of having 50 different licenses requiring basically the same stuff but all wanting multiple thousand dollar fees for issue. That's crazy. The states need to be uniform in their control and allow out of state businesses to access customers without another license burden as long as the business has a license in it's primary state of residence.

Again, I hate to say it but, perhaps one federal requirement that superseeds the states would make sense though it is highly unlikely that could happen.

Excellent job all, this would certainly be on the right track. Accountability for crypto businesses and reasonable requirements for consumer protection.

RJF

hero member

Activity: 616

Merit: 500

Online since '89...

With the news and talk about regulation going on recently, I believe it may be a good idea if we voice our opinion on what favorable and fair regulation would look like from our standpoint. Many of us know the industry pretty well and understand what the major risk factors are for consumer security with digital currency.

In your own opinion, what would you consider fair regulation to protect consumers without hindering advancement?

I'm not an expert, but here's how I would approach it.

1. Set up a set of standards related to website security, amount of funds backing up user accounts, insurance coverage (if there ever is such a thing), and various other reasonable precautions that large sites which hold user funds should be taking.
2. Next, set up a grading system of some sort. So an A rated company adheres to the strictest standards, whereas a C or D rated company adheres to more lenient standards.
3. The conditions which must be met for each grade are clearly and publicly posted so everyone knows.
4. Companies can post their grade based on what standards they are following. Potential users see it and can make an informed decision based on their own risk tolerance. Some consumers may choose to only deal with A and B companies. Others may be fine with doing some business with C and D companies.
5. Adhering to these standards is completely voluntary. No one forces any business to meet those standards. However, if they don't meet them, they don't get to advertise themselves as an A rated company. They may lose a lot of potential customers but most likely save on their up front costs. Companies can at any time "upgrade" to a higher grade by meeting that grade level's standards.
6. Standards would be determined by some sort of group of knowledgeable industry leaders and whoever else might make up these types of groups.
7. There is some sort of neutral auditing group whose job it is to review companies and determine which standards they are meeting and issue them their "grade." This auditing group also posts all participating companies and their grades on a website that anyone can read, so that companies claiming to have a certain grade can be checked against the auditing group's list. That site could also be educational about what the standards mean and why they are important, and can also warn people about certain types of sites which are plain never going to make the grade and why (Bitcoin doublers, for example).
8. Everything is done as transparently as possible.
9. A company that uses other companies (for example a retail site that has a 3rd party payment gateway) should have a page where all their third parties and their grades are posted as well.

The bottom line is that in my opinion, the kind of "regulation" that really serves the public is standardization which makes it very clear how a service measures up in terms of various conditions the general public would or should care about. A service can either make the grade or not but it has the right to exist and conduct business regardless. But the company making the grade is likely to attract more customers.

I'm not a huge fan of companies being "forced" to make a certain standardization grade, because I believe that potential customers have the right and ability to make an informed decision. I do believe that such criteria should be well known and it should be very transparent how grades are determined and given out and then the public decides which companies to patronize based on those grades. Basically, the government or some kind of regulatory body can really help everyone by setting and enforcing standards (or at least overseeing that process), and making it clear how businesses measure up. But then leave the choice to the consumer. Maybe I will only trade on an A rated exchange but someone else might be fine with a B rated exchange because the fees are lower. Startup businesses should have the freedom to exist and gradually "level up" on their grades so as not to be priced out of even starting. They would have to work harder to earn their customers' trust but at least they could be conducting business while raising funds to meet various criteria. A reputable online business is going to voluntarily take certain precautions to make sure their customers' accounts and funds are as secure as possible, but probably won't be able to start off using the absolute most state of the art security systems. That should be fine as long as what they do have (and don't have) is clearly disclosed, or at least what grade they have.

"Startup businesses should have the freedom to exist and gradually "level up" on their grades so as not to be priced out of even starting." I think the whole concept of levelling up is brilliant, wiser! Maybe they could even be limited to what markets their coin, stock, etc could be sold on similar to the lowest level of the stock market being the OTC / pink sheets. Everyone knows those are the most risky stocks to buy.

Chase/Wiser; totally agree here. And one thing really stands out, website security. I, personally, would put very little regulation on the "coin" itself and focus more on the security of websites dealing with the public, especially exchanges. I tend to compare crypto with cash when discussing human interaction. I can still hand you a dollar, or one hundred thousand dollars for that matter, in private, you to me, without jumping through any hoops. In other words, I can transfer wealth to you without regulation. The whole regulatory nightmare exists on a previous level where you obtain that cash, and in the banks where you "store" it.

In other words, the end transaction of moving money from me to you, in private has no inescapable regulatory burden. If I remain unbanked and outside the financial system, regulations do not really effect me as long as I don't need to enter that system.

I realize that in real life this is near impossible but, there are plenty people doing it even here in the US. These people live off the grid and outside what you and I consider "society". Not really a bad thing but, not for most of us.

Getting back to the issue at hand, in crypto, its the "last mile" that is the problem. There will always be bad actors, it's human nature and it's easy to take advantage of someone hiding behind a website. Also, I don't believe in KYC and AML laws, basically, they are useless and present an extreme barrier to entry to our our industry. They raise the bar so high over the heads of entrepreneurs that innovation and free thinking are eliminated and replaced with "the same old crap" from established entities pretending to be startups.

My vision of fair and balanced regulation and crypto business startup would go something like this:

Prerequisites for the business,

1. If you want to start an online crypto business, identify yourself. No handles or nicks, use real names.
2. Clean, verified background check, no criminals allowed.
3. Prove you have the resources to cover your proposed operation, put up a bond or guarantee reserves large enough to cover possible customer losses.
4. Have a solid business plan, not just an idea.
5. If more than sole proprietor, incorporate, LLC, etc for legitimacy and your own protection.
6. Apply for and obtain the license described below.

Government, (I would prefer one licensing agency for the country but, we all know this is not possible)

1. It's ok for states to issue their own license but, the fees must be fair and the wording must include the ability to recognize another states regulations without having to obtain a license in a state other than the one the crypto business resides in. This could be federal but does not have to be. States could form a consortium or similiar agency for uniform regulation across all 50 US states.

2. Be reasonable. It doesn't cost $5000.00 to verify information, make a database entry and issue a piece of paper. And, use a 5 yr renewal base at a lower cost than the initial license.

3. Require the basics not the world. Include 1 through 6 above and allow self policing for AML and KYC requirements. Set a transaction amount where this reporting would kick in but realize that due to the very nature of the technology, traditional reporting is not going to work for most crypto businesses.

Again, the biggest issue I see is the rush towards applying existing, archaic regulations to crypo especially when it is not even possible to meet those requirements. And, right along with this is very real possibility of having 50 different licenses requiring basically the same stuff but all wanting multiple thousand dollar fees for issue. That's crazy. The states need to be uniform in their control and allow out of state businesses to access customers without another license burden as long as the business has a license in it's primary state of residence.

Again, I hate to say it but, perhaps one federal requirement that superseeds the states would make sense though it is highly unlikely that could happen.

wiser

legendary

Activity: 1806

Merit: 1029

Quote from: OCTOPARTY on June 15, 2015, 11:06:00 PM

Maybe they could even be limited to what markets their coin, stock, etc could be sold on similar to the lowest level of the stock market being the OTC / pink sheets. Everyone knows those are the most risky stocks to buy.

I hadn't thought of that, but I can see it working. Certain markets/exchanges would only be open to grade A businesses, while others might be open to C and D businesses. There's a demand for both, as we've seen with penny stocks. It's just that people buying penny stocks are prepared to take greater risks than those buying stocks of more established companies.

Ultimately, I think the goal of regulation or licensing or standardization should be to ensure that people are buying what they think they are buying. You want to avoid the situation where a consumer believes in good faith that he or she is buying stock of a well established company when he is actually buying something totally different, such as a high risk stock of an upstart company.

I don't know if anyone here has followed the whole GAW Miners story, which I got caught up in, but basically what happened to me was that I bought what I was led to believe was hosted mining equipment, which then morphed into some kind of glorified staking wallet. Regardless of how legitimate the staking wallet is/was, the problem I have is that I bought one thing that turned out to be an entirely different thing. I would have preferred to have bought what I intended to buy in the first place.

Regulation, in my opinion, can help consumers be clear on what they are buying by setting standards for such things. Once everything has been defined and put into its appropriate category, then the choice can be left up to the consumer. I may choose to buy a stock that's designated as high risk (and have to go to the special place to buy it). That is fine. I assume the risk and responsibility for that. What I hope the regulation does for me is help me avoid the scenario where I think I'm buying a stable and low risk S&P 500 stock but what I get instead is a penny stock (and then the stock goes belly up).

DNotes

legendary

Activity: 1932

Merit: 1111

DNotes

With the news and talk about regulation going on recently, I believe it may be a good idea if we voice our opinion on what favorable and fair regulation would look like from our standpoint. Many of us know the industry pretty well and understand what the major risk factors are for consumer security with digital currency.

In your own opinion, what would you consider fair regulation to protect consumers without hindering advancement?

I tend to view the less regulation the better. I understand that most regulators fly the banner of consumer protection but like anything else in government, it tends to swing to corruption, sooner or later.

When corruption can create barriers of entry for the little guy, regulation has lost it's own battle of protecting the consumer. You cannot protect the general public when you protect established companies who run the regulators.

That is what scares me most when Bitcoin companies begin becoming cozy with the regulation establishment.

However, I realize in this political climate where you play ball or go home, many Bitcoin and altcoin companies will play ball. I tend to agree with Andreas's opinions on regulations in Bitcoin. If you don't know, then youtube is your friend

I am interested to see how all of the regulatory mess plays out over the next few years. I predict that it becomes very, very messy.

Thanks OCTOPARTY.

I have seen Andreas videos.

Here is the short version:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hL67jtVimFA

And the long version:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tgEDOBgYg-g

DNotes

legendary

Activity: 1932

Merit: 1111

DNotes

With the news and talk about regulation going on recently, I believe it may be a good idea if we voice our opinion on what favorable and fair regulation would look like from our standpoint. Many of us know the industry pretty well and understand what the major risk factors are for consumer security with digital currency.

In your own opinion, what would you consider fair regulation to protect consumers without hindering advancement?

I'm not an expert, but here's how I would approach it.

1. Set up a set of standards related to website security, amount of funds backing up user accounts, insurance coverage (if there ever is such a thing), and various other reasonable precautions that large sites which hold user funds should be taking.
2. Next, set up a grading system of some sort. So an A rated company adheres to the strictest standards, whereas a C or D rated company adheres to more lenient standards.
3. The conditions which must be met for each grade are clearly and publicly posted so everyone knows.
4. Companies can post their grade based on what standards they are following. Potential users see it and can make an informed decision based on their own risk tolerance. Some consumers may choose to only deal with A and B companies. Others may be fine with doing some business with C and D companies.
5. Adhering to these standards is completely voluntary. No one forces any business to meet those standards. However, if they don't meet them, they don't get to advertise themselves as an A rated company. They may lose a lot of potential customers but most likely save on their up front costs. Companies can at any time "upgrade" to a higher grade by meeting that grade level's standards.
6. Standards would be determined by some sort of group of knowledgeable industry leaders and whoever else might make up these types of groups.
7. There is some sort of neutral auditing group whose job it is to review companies and determine which standards they are meeting and issue them their "grade." This auditing group also posts all participating companies and their grades on a website that anyone can read, so that companies claiming to have a certain grade can be checked against the auditing group's list. That site could also be educational about what the standards mean and why they are important, and can also warn people about certain types of sites which are plain never going to make the grade and why (Bitcoin doublers, for example).
8. Everything is done as transparently as possible.
9. A company that uses other companies (for example a retail site that has a 3rd party payment gateway) should have a page where all their third parties and their grades are posted as well.

The bottom line is that in my opinion, the kind of "regulation" that really serves the public is standardization which makes it very clear how a service measures up in terms of various conditions the general public would or should care about. A service can either make the grade or not but it has the right to exist and conduct business regardless. But the company making the grade is likely to attract more customers.

I'm not a huge fan of companies being "forced" to make a certain standardization grade, because I believe that potential customers have the right and ability to make an informed decision. I do believe that such criteria should be well known and it should be very transparent how grades are determined and given out and then the public decides which companies to patronize based on those grades. Basically, the government or some kind of regulatory body can really help everyone by setting and enforcing standards (or at least overseeing that process), and making it clear how businesses measure up. But then leave the choice to the consumer. Maybe I will only trade on an A rated exchange but someone else might be fine with a B rated exchange because the fees are lower. Startup businesses should have the freedom to exist and gradually "level up" on their grades so as not to be priced out of even starting. They would have to work harder to earn their customers' trust but at least they could be conducting business while raising funds to meet various criteria. A reputable online business is going to voluntarily take certain precautions to make sure their customers' accounts and funds are as secure as possible, but probably won't be able to start off using the absolute most state of the art security systems. That should be fine as long as what they do have (and don't have) is clearly disclosed, or at least what grade they have.

Thank you Wiser, nicely done! It would put the control in the hands of the consumer to make their own informed decision.

Chase

legendary

Activity: 1638

Merit: 1005

For anyone who is new to DNotes or hasn't been following the forum lately, DNotes is the only digital currency at Silicon Dragon NY 2015. Way to go Alan and DNotes!!!

Silicon Dragon NY 2015
Nasdaq MarketSite
4 Times Square

Monday at 17:30 (EDT)

Silicon Dragon NY 2015: GLOBAL INNOVATION REVOLUTION - LED BY THE WORLD'S LEADING TECH TITANS, CHINA & THE U.S. (+ India, Israel)

DEALMAKER PANEL
Jim Robinson, Co-founder/Managing Partner, RRE Ventures
Pat Kenealy, Managing Director, IDG Ventures USA
Alessandro Piol, Partner & Co-founder, Alphaprime Ventures
Annemarie Tierney, VP, Strategy & New Markets, NASDAQ Private Market
Claudia Iannazzo, Partner, Pereg Ventures
Moderator: Rebecca Fannin, Silicon Dragon / Forbes

INNOVATION SPOTLIGHT: Digital Currencies
Francesco Rulli, Founder, BitLanders & BitCharities
Sarah Martin, VP, Digital Currency Council
Alan Yong, Founder, DNotes
Moderator: Porter Bibb, Managing Partner, MediaTech Capital Partners

TECH CHATS
Mark Hookey, CEO, DemystData
Ronald Li, Founder, Novoheart
Ding Ding, Founder, SayWhat
HIGHLIGHT
Mobile photos of Beijing every day life taken through the lens of China tech guru Frank Yu
MODERATORS: Christine Lu, Founder, 8x8; Bill Holstein, Business Journalist and Author

Chase

legendary

Activity: 1638

Merit: 1005

Quote from: Dyna on June 15, 2015, 10:06:05 AM

With the news and talk about regulation going on recently, I believe it may be a good idea if we voice our opinion on what favorable and fair regulation would look like from our standpoint. Many of us know the industry pretty well and understand what the major risk factors are for consumer security with digital currency.

In your own opinion, what would you consider fair regulation to protect consumers without hindering advancement?

I'm not an expert, but here's how I would approach it.

1. Set up a set of standards related to website security, amount of funds backing up user accounts, insurance coverage (if there ever is such a thing), and various other reasonable precautions that large sites which hold user funds should be taking.
2. Next, set up a grading system of some sort. So an A rated company adheres to the strictest standards, whereas a C or D rated company adheres to more lenient standards.
3. The conditions which must be met for each grade are clearly and publicly posted so everyone knows.
4. Companies can post their grade based on what standards they are following. Potential users see it and can make an informed decision based on their own risk tolerance. Some consumers may choose to only deal with A and B companies. Others may be fine with doing some business with C and D companies.
5. Adhering to these standards is completely voluntary. No one forces any business to meet those standards. However, if they don't meet them, they don't get to advertise themselves as an A rated company. They may lose a lot of potential customers but most likely save on their up front costs. Companies can at any time "upgrade" to a higher grade by meeting that grade level's standards.
6. Standards would be determined by some sort of group of knowledgeable industry leaders and whoever else might make up these types of groups.
7. There is some sort of neutral auditing group whose job it is to review companies and determine which standards they are meeting and issue them their "grade." This auditing group also posts all participating companies and their grades on a website that anyone can read, so that companies claiming to have a certain grade can be checked against the auditing group's list. That site could also be educational about what the standards mean and why they are important, and can also warn people about certain types of sites which are plain never going to make the grade and why (Bitcoin doublers, for example).
8. Everything is done as transparently as possible.
9. A company that uses other companies (for example a retail site that has a 3rd party payment gateway) should have a page where all their third parties and their grades are posted as well.

The bottom line is that in my opinion, the kind of "regulation" that really serves the public is standardization which makes it very clear how a service measures up in terms of various conditions the general public would or should care about. A service can either make the grade or not but it has the right to exist and conduct business regardless. But the company making the grade is likely to attract more customers.

I'm not a huge fan of companies being "forced" to make a certain standardization grade, because I believe that potential customers have the right and ability to make an informed decision. I do believe that such criteria should be well known and it should be very transparent how grades are determined and given out and then the public decides which companies to patronize based on those grades. Basically, the government or some kind of regulatory body can really help everyone by setting and enforcing standards (or at least overseeing that process), and making it clear how businesses measure up. But then leave the choice to the consumer. Maybe I will only trade on an A rated exchange but someone else might be fine with a B rated exchange because the fees are lower. Startup businesses should have the freedom to exist and gradually "level up" on their grades so as not to be priced out of even starting. They would have to work harder to earn their customers' trust but at least they could be conducting business while raising funds to meet various criteria. A reputable online business is going to voluntarily take certain precautions to make sure their customers' accounts and funds are as secure as possible, but probably won't be able to start off using the absolute most state of the art security systems. That should be fine as long as what they do have (and don't have) is clearly disclosed, or at least what grade they have.

"Startup businesses should have the freedom to exist and gradually "level up" on their grades so as not to be priced out of even starting." I think the whole concept of levelling up is brilliant, wiser! Maybe they could even be limited to what markets their coin, stock, etc could be sold on similar to the lowest level of the stock market being the OTC / pink sheets. Everyone knows those are the most risky stocks to buy.

grandmama

member

Activity: 82

Merit: 10

Check this out. Looks cool. I will be presenting DNotes here:

Silicon Dragon NY 2015

Nasdaq MarketSite
4 Times Square

June 22, 2015 5:30 PM (EDT)

http://www.getvamos.com/events/silicon-dragon-ny-2015/9828147

That to me looks like a busy place with bright lights shining, just like you will be shining when you present!

OCTOPARTY

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

With the news and talk about regulation going on recently, I believe it may be a good idea if we voice our opinion on what favorable and fair regulation would look like from our standpoint. Many of us know the industry pretty well and understand what the major risk factors are for consumer security with digital currency.

In your own opinion, what would you consider fair regulation to protect consumers without hindering advancement?

I tend to view the less regulation the better. I understand that most regulators fly the banner of consumer protection but like anything else in government, it tends to swing to corruption, sooner or later.

When corruption can create barriers of entry for the little guy, regulation has lost it's own battle of protecting the consumer. You cannot protect the general public when you protect established companies who run the regulators.

That is what scares me most when Bitcoin companies begin becoming cozy with the regulation establishment.

However, I realize in this political climate where you play ball or go home, many Bitcoin and altcoin companies will play ball. I tend to agree with Andreas's opinions on regulations in Bitcoin. If you don't know, then youtube is your friend

I am interested to see how all of the regulatory mess plays out over the next few years. I predict that it becomes very, very messy.

wiser

legendary

Activity: 1806

Merit: 1029