Quote from: Bostonbitcoin on February 05, 2014, 01:08:05 PM

Exactly! Those two comments bothered me as well.

We included the 1000 flowers comment in the letter.

The other point would be great to include as well if we had space.

It's so odd for a regulator to suggest that as a solution to the massive burdens of regulation "oh, just have venture capitalists pick the best businesses and fund them"

First off all it's terrible business....VCs have enough risks without adding $2-3 million on regulatory costs which offer no ROI, second it discriminates against small and lifestyle businesses ...which are BY FAR the biggest employers in the US and the world. Very wrongheaded thinking.

The quote is at 57:00, I can't figure out who the regulator is though...
I don't think my long and detailed explanation is necessary. I think just a sentence or two will suffice. Maybe:

"In contrast to the comments made by Mr. XXX (day 1, time 57:00) about how startups are created, the reality of the very early stage startup is that it often operates without funding or investors. Venture capitalists often enter after a business model has proven itself in the local market to drive it nation or worldwide. To require even 50k in regulatory fees or excessive time burden is going to eliminate startups like Intel and Facebook (which began in a garage and a dorm room, respectively) and perhaps more importantly, this barrier to entry will grant essentially a monopoly on Bitcoin startups to well-funded VCs at the expense of the individual hard-working entrepreneur. Rather than face this burden, these very-early-phase startups will simply incorporate in another jurisdiction."