> It ultimately comes down to what flavour of politics you subscribe to
If you were to tell any of your progressive friends about Reg-D, but framed it as written by "the 1%" - they'll naturally think the law is unjust and shouldn't exist.
I think this has less to do with political flavor and more to do with critical thinking skills. Unless Reg-D also bans gambling at Vegas and throwing your money down a well - then it comes up short of it's protectionist goals. But it definitely succeeds in protecting qualified investors from "unqualified" investors.
> If you were to tell any of your progressive friends about Reg-D, but framed it as written by "the 1%" - they'll naturally think the law is unjust and shouldn't exist.
I agree that there is a lot of collectivism in politics, and that "the 1%" rallying cries are mostly a way of controlling a group of people into opposing things they are uninformed about. So discussing anything as being written by "the 1%" is never going to lead to useful discourse. But I don't see why any of that matters.
Also "any of [my] progressive friends"? I don't understand why you're being hostile. I don't really associate with people based on their politics, it makes it too easy to have an echo chamber (or a shouting match). Not to mention that wasn't the point of my comment, it was to ask GGP to expand on their views.
> I think this has less to do with political flavor and more to do with critical thinking skills.
Then why mention (what you assume are) my politics at all?
> Unless Reg-D also bans gambling at Vegas and throwing your money down a well - then it comes up short of it's protectionist goals.
I think gambling should be better regulated, and I think that defrauding people to "throw money down a well" shouldn't be legal. I don't care if you, of your own volition, decide to throw your money down a well (though it actually does cost your country money to re-print said currency). What I do care about is someone trying to defraud you. But this is a complete straw-man, securities laws are about fraud not about being stupid with your money.
I'm not authoritarian, but pretending like regulation over speculative investments are not going to help any unexperienced investors is just ridiculous.
I think the issue with these regulations is that they use net worth as a proxy for an investor's qualifications. I'm not convinced that this is a good proxy.
Any grandma or grandpa who's been putting a decent amount from each paycheck into US equities for 50 years is going to be very wealthy today - but is probably not truly a "sophisticated investor". They're a prime target to get ripped off.
By contrast, a bright young software engineer a few years ago who picked up early on Airbnb or Uber could potentially be a "sophisticated investor", but would be excluded because of his or her net worth.
I really am not sure what an ideal proxy would be. I used "grandma/grandpa" and "bright young software engineer" in my example, but I don't think age or occupation would be good proxies either. Perhaps some sort of investor qualification exam?
Regardless, the completely-unregulated ICO market is a separate issue from private equity more generally. We should be careful conflating the two.
If you were to tell any of your progressive friends about Reg-D, but framed it as written by "the 1%" - they'll naturally think the law is unjust and shouldn't exist.
I think this has less to do with political flavor and more to do with critical thinking skills. Unless Reg-D also bans gambling at Vegas and throwing your money down a well - then it comes up short of it's protectionist goals. But it definitely succeeds in protecting qualified investors from "unqualified" investors.