wait a sec shelby. shouldnt this be the job of the US non-accredited investors to decide what they can or cant do.
Originally I supported this perspective, which also seems to be supported by the actual history of the blueksky laws in the USA:
http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2679&context=fss_papersWhat changed my mind is the altcoin arena has turned totally away from any sane decentralized designs to the proof-of-shit/stake designs which are really just MLM investment scams in disguise that prey on the gambling instinct in humans.
It is regressing the progress of our technologies, not advancing them.
More abstractly, you are essentially arguing that every member of society is an island and can protect him/herself from every threat alone.
Shouldn't it be the job of every citizen of a nation to defend themselves against a nuclear bomb using their handgun.
The reason the USA protects the little man from his own gambling instinct is because it is known to be an impoverishing addiction that leads to deleterious outcomes for society. Whether it didn't entirely come about for that reason, the public seems to support the regulation of gambling.
My more abstract generative essence statement on regulation is as follows. Any market which is not self-regulating, i.e. which is dysfunctional and not behaving as a free market, will end up regulated by special interests. My definition of "free market" is decentralized market. So the reason the altcoin market is not decentralized and is dysfunctional, is because of asymmetric information. The speculators entirely lack the ability to understand the technobabble. They entirely rely on a few "experts" to guide them. And thus the market does not function. It regresses.
You need a Nash equilibrium for security aspects, but you also need one for adoption. If someone premines the entire coin and has the market cornered by design on day one, there's zero incentive for anyone to adopt it when the issuer and his cronies have such advantage over everyone else. You're just replicating central banking except the value of central banking units is derived through coercion, and without it, it would have no value.
Which is precisely why it can't become a "value transfer system" where that is supposed to mean a currency and unit-of-exchange, and not a transfer of value from gamblers and fools to
snakeoiltechnocoolbabble salesmen.