Knowing how badly this could have gone, I think this is almost wonderful news. I'm really impressed with this:

Giancarlo also expressed an understanding of the generational nature of digital currency innovation:

“We owe it to this new generation to respect their enthusiasm for virtual currencies, with a thoughtful and balance response, and not a dismissive one.”


This comment was from another article in Yahoo finance:

“We should regulate ICOs like we regulate securities offerings,” Clayton said. “End of story.” He noted that companies selling "tokens" in their ICOs are different than companies selling cryptocurrency.

This sounds very promising for cryptocurrencies -  I may have to take back my comments on regulators not knowing the difference between cryptocurrency and ICOs, and "lumping them into one big bitcoin boat". 

SEC, CFTC Testify Before Senate on What's Needed for Virtual Currency  -  https://finance.yahoo.com/news/sec-cftc-testify-senate-apos-065435895.html

I appreciate hearing your optimistic take. I especially like that the lawmakers appeared to be knowledgeable. That is always a good sign. I'm sure the differences between ICO tokens and cryptocurrencies will be clarified over time.

https://ebitnews.com/ico/dfinity-blockchain-ico-cloud-tezos/

There is a part of me that definitely doesn't like this, and a smaller part of me that does.

I could tell a long story, but the summary is that many years ago I wanted to invest in Facebook through the secondary markets at a time when it was a $10b company. I wasn't allowed too, because I wasn't already accredited (read: already rich). So I had to go to rich people I knew with my thesis. Nobody took my advice. Now FB is one of the most valuable corporations in the world. Thanks SEC for letting me participate in that upside as a poor person!!

That's a huge thing I like about Crypto. I have my thesis. And nobody can tell me to act on it or not with some artificial market-altering rules. So, it's annoying that I can't participate in DFINITY, or MIT's Enigma project, and several others....because I'm still not rich enough to meet the SEC definitions for being accredited. 7-8 years later. And NOTHING has changed.

Yet, something about ICOs (read: all the scams) is also unpalatable.

In general, I am Laissez Faire Libertarian w.r.t. economics. I think access >>>> risk. People should be able to make their own mistakes within a framework. And disallowing all access in the name of security, is bullshit.

As Ben Franklin said, "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

It is a conflict as there is good and bad on both sides. After talking to Alan and all the research he has done in the crowdfunding arena, I am much more comfortable that we are moving in the right direction and these types of investments will be more open to everyone, and not just the rich, in the future. You are absolutely right, you should have been able to make an investment in a company you believe in, and risk your own money to do so. History teaches us that having it wide open can lead to catastrophe, however those catastrophic events were in a very different time, today it could be handled in a different way to ensure risks are well known and documented as well as promotion and representation efforts are tempered.

I like the points being made here by RJF and MiningHabit that far too many people are excluded from private equity funding stages of the business cycle. Everybody should be able to participate. That is one reason why I have so much respect for the DNotes approach, and why I'm absolutely certain we have taken the right path. Just like the tag line we have adopted in our videos going forward:

"DNotes - the inclusive digital currency, for everyone."

I absolutely love that comment RJF. In my view, success can be boiled down to the expression of one's vaunted principles and virtue. Many projects will likely fall by the wayside when they realise that institutional and user reluctance to use their products is the result of them taking an easy route, that has led to regulatory hurdles that can't be overcome but to begin again. Many in the ICO realm have gone with the 'easy route', that doesn't necessarily guarantee long-term success. The messaging in this forum has always praised the novelty and benefits that Initial Coin Offerings may offer, though we have always remained cautious on them with respect to our expectations of regulator responses to security checks that ICO's have historically circumvented. We have often discussed the need for sensible cryptocurrency regulation, and DCEBrief was created to aid these stakeholders as an education tool.

Earlier today I submitted a proposal to one of the largest New Zealand public-sector organizations that is trying to increase their capability in the cryptocurrency space. The consultation document was created in response to a request forwarded to me that originated via the commissioner of the organization themselves, and it is my current understanding that my early session(s) may involve educating executives from other organisations sitting board of directors. I am very privileged to be in a position to at least help out however I can in my corner of the world. The benefits of getting countries to one-by-one take sensible steps to understanding and making room for cryptocurrencies are enormous, and it is much better to get involved when the policies are being drafted, rather than after the fact. I think that New Zealand could become a huge market for DNotes, given that no cryptocurrency but NAV have a presence in the country, and all applications built in the country are created on proxy platforms like ethereum or outsourced to overseas firms, which mean less control and customizability for those organizations that commission development.

That said, the first step is getting the regulations right.

Great work Tim, you are helping to shape our future and build an amazing network.

I believe one day ICO can be regulated and exist in the centralized world. A light touch regulatory framework initially would be helpful to allow things to come together. This has to be very carefully planned from the side of the regulators, as a mistake could have dire consequences. This light touch framework could include, the ICO issuers would have to be responsible for ensuring the reporting of allowing users on the network only after they have verified themselves and met the outlined requirements. It would also require securities exchange rules that fall outside of existing requirements for those that exchange securities today. I don't see how it could happen without cooperation from many parties, and could take a long time to get to that point, as well as a period of time thereafter to bring it in line with existing regulations.