Topic: Implication of regulation and the securities status - page 3. (Read 474 times)
Regulation is good as it brings confidence in the technology. However, the right balance must be implemented. Enough to keep frauds away but just enough to keep the environment safe for growing companies. There's just so much scams out there, i do think measures should be put in place.
ICOs definitely need regulation. Then again a fool and his money are easily departed. I like the challenges presented in finding a decent ICO and if you think about it, there are probably thousands of companies started everyday around the world so if there are 10 ICOs every day, it's not really a big deal.
Well I think one of the reasons the market is so unstable at the moment is because it is saturated with new projects. I think making it harder to complete an ICO will hopefully filter out most of that saturation allowing only the projects worth while to succeed.
The regulation of cryptomarket can protect from scams, but this is just the official reason: actually, the cryptomarket is already regulated by an open source software. When governments propose some kind of rules, they only want to control the system an to put taxes on it.
What do you mean? Regulation can block many scammer? If you say this, what Korea when get the regulations and they still get many of scam and hacked through their exchanges? Does not add up here when yu said regulations can help them to find out the scammer and can prevent it from happens. Both of these thing does not have relation at all, between regulation and hack, there is no really personal reason to have. As long as you have tight security then it should not be the problem at all
Regulating the crypto currency is actually against the inventory of the crypto currency because it was found to be used as a decentralized technology which means we don't need anyone's permission for using it but now the government are regulating it to make money from it.
Regulation sounds awful for any cryptocurrency investor but regulation is one of the best thing for cryptocurrency users in order to not get scammed. There goes my opinion. I don't like losing my anonymity but regulation at least prevents from being scammed in a way and helps in safeguarding my funds to some extent.
Regulations have always been seen as restricting or limiting factor in the transactions. But I don't really believe in that one! The regulations for good purpose that might be 50% good for us and 50% for the advantages of the government such as keeping the records of all your transaction and later it can get caught into the taxation etc. But that is not important, whats important is the safety of our funds and we must know where the money is really going. If the money is going into right place which is kind of pre-verified by the regulatory authorities by KYC means then I think that is the best thing for the investors only. About the new start ups, I don't think that it will be problem at all, its just small upgrade with many advantages. Off course they are going to play in billions of dollars and they wont bother by few of the regulations. 
There are both good and bad things when ICO's are regulated. ICO's can easily be rifed with fraud, Created for money laundering and also pose a high risk to investors. That being said this is not always true but a one side of the story. For me I would say regulations are necessary to get your money back in case of such scams happen and the SEC as clearly stated the same. If you don't want the regulations get ready to forget about your investment.
Regulating bitcoin as well as the ICOs can be an advantage for the industry, this can help to lessen or even eliminate the fraudsters and scam projects. This will attract more investors and can help improve the crypto market even more.
It would depend on the country itself, of course, as they deal with the issue differently, but in general:
a) Security movement is tightly regulated, so even peer-to-peer trading may be scrutinized
b) Miners may be considered as a "security issuer", so they will need to register themselves, and their sales would have to be tightly regulated
c) Selling Bitcoins may require even individuals with small amounts to have permits
Still, I imagine each case will have to be looked at individually, so the smaller players may not be affected at all, not to mention that it's likely impossible to track every single transaction. We'll see, I guess.
a) Security movement is tightly regulated, so even peer-to-peer trading may be scrutinized
b) Miners may be considered as a "security issuer", so they will need to register themselves, and their sales would have to be tightly regulated
c) Selling Bitcoins may require even individuals with small amounts to have permits
Still, I imagine each case will have to be looked at individually, so the smaller players may not be affected at all, not to mention that it's likely impossible to track every single transaction. We'll see, I guess.
I don't think miners will be regarded as a security issue. Remember, they don't send any transactions at all, they just maintain the ledger, they are accountants.
With a), there have been a lot of scam ICOs, so there will be regulation which means ICOs will only be done for real projects
and c) would come under existing money laundering rules. So large movements will be scrutinised, but small movements not. (Because who on earth launders small amounts like $100?)
It would depend on the country itself, of course, as they deal with the issue differently, but in general:
a) Security movement is tightly regulated, so even peer-to-peer trading may be scrutinized
b) Miners may be considered as a "security issuer", so they will need to register themselves, and their sales would have to be tightly regulated
c) Selling Bitcoins may require even individuals with small amounts to have permits
Still, I imagine each case will have to be looked at individually, so the smaller players may not be affected at all, not to mention that it's likely impossible to track every single transaction. We'll see, I guess.
a) Security movement is tightly regulated, so even peer-to-peer trading may be scrutinized
b) Miners may be considered as a "security issuer", so they will need to register themselves, and their sales would have to be tightly regulated
c) Selling Bitcoins may require even individuals with small amounts to have permits
Still, I imagine each case will have to be looked at individually, so the smaller players may not be affected at all, not to mention that it's likely impossible to track every single transaction. We'll see, I guess.
When regulated that means it is already popular and that is good because users will have confidence to use bitcoin.
Bitcoin as long as regulated to protect the interest of the users, this would be very good for us, some might make a FUD but that is normal
in the crypto market, eventually the market will recover and we are gonna go green in the long run.
Bitcoin as long as regulated to protect the interest of the users, this would be very good for us, some might make a FUD but that is normal
in the crypto market, eventually the market will recover and we are gonna go green in the long run.
It is to help lessen and discourage scammers in harming other people in the cryptocurrency world. And in my opinion, this is actually great because bitcoin is being recognized in some countries and they are accepting through methods such as this. This could be the start of something good to the bitcoin community.
The need of more secure investment in ICO has been drastically increasing as the amount of scams we encounter are also rising day by day. Most of the promising projects turn out to be a scam like confido was one.
If the government has some plans for reducing these frauds then it's really good.
Other countries should also adopt and implement these solutions for reducing scams and giving the right projects and ICOs what they deserve.
Similar steps have been taken, and ICO 2.0 was created.
Read more about it here- https://coincodex.com/article/1329/vitalik-buterin-suggest-improvements-to-ico-model/
If the government has some plans for reducing these frauds then it's really good.
Other countries should also adopt and implement these solutions for reducing scams and giving the right projects and ICOs what they deserve.
Similar steps have been taken, and ICO 2.0 was created.
Read more about it here- https://coincodex.com/article/1329/vitalik-buterin-suggest-improvements-to-ico-model/
The regulation of cryptomarket can protect from scams, but this is just the official reason: actually, the cryptomarket is already regulated by an open source software. When governments propose some kind of rules, they only want to control the system an to put taxes on it.
It is a good. At least Bitcoin already gained recognition.
Hi all,
just want to throw out a question. Whats your opinion on the regulation of cryptos to a securities status (global scenario) ?
As an example, in Switzerland the financial regulatory agengy FINMA has set regulations that will limit the possibilities for new ICO's and provide more safety for investors.
(see: https://www.finma.ch/en/news/2018/02/20180216-mm-ico-wegleitung/)
Resumed, I think it will be good for the market and future of ICO's but others think it will suffocate new startups. I would be very interested in some opinions on the subject.
Thanks
just want to throw out a question. Whats your opinion on the regulation of cryptos to a securities status (global scenario) ?
As an example, in Switzerland the financial regulatory agengy FINMA has set regulations that will limit the possibilities for new ICO's and provide more safety for investors.
(see: https://www.finma.ch/en/news/2018/02/20180216-mm-ico-wegleitung/)
Resumed, I think it will be good for the market and future of ICO's but others think it will suffocate new startups. I would be very interested in some opinions on the subject.
Thanks
Jump to: