> Securities laws were specifically designed to protect individual investors, based on the idea that they “can’t fend for themselves,” James Carlson, a New York University adjunct securities regulation professor, told me today. By the same token ... “big institutional investors don’t need the protections of the securities laws. … This effectively stands that philosophy on its head,” he said.

>

> The implications of this part of the ruling are worrisome. As Carlson said, “The potential for bucket shop or boiler room fraud … is alarming.” Carlson painted a scenario where a crypto firm issues tokens to heavyweight institutional traders, who get detailed disclosures required by securities laws, but they then flip it to individual traders, who don’t get those disclosures.

>

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

🤡🌎

You might imagine the ruling as a signaling mechanism, presuming this will be eventually struck down by sec, that effectively says

"Don't be dumb money and trade shitcoins"

Regular people won’t follow the details closely, but it’s possible. I see it more as a signal to institutional investors to dump aggressively post securitized ICO in the future, because the US has your back. Related: in the past I thought the US was being kind of negative on bitcoin to suppress price to help citizens get a head start, but that’s generous in retrospect. I kind of stopped thinking deeply about what governments etc are trying to signal about the future. Bitcoin is one tool that allows me to “do my own thing” and not be bothered