You shouldn't be able to run one unless you're a registered company. It has to be relatively easy to come after you for fraud as an investor.

Considering that this is a mechanism that is predominantly used to fund projects or companies anyway, I don't think that's an irrational requirement.

all the same laws are applicable and fraud is fraud.

what is more interesting is that a variety of traditional control mechanisms appear to be ineffective at stopping the two voluntary parties from interacting whereas for banking and brokerages they are sufficient.

I'd hate to see a second useless set of laws be made, similar to "hate crimes" (a crime is a crime - except when you say a certain something or think a certain way?? wtf) but how would you even enforce a law requiring specific criteria for an ICO when an anonymous 14 year old kid anywhere in the world can do it in 20 minutes??!

i am of the thought that not every guerilla ICO has to be brought to justice but the "rule of law" requires some semblance of respect and obedience and I've been to countries where everything is up for negotiation and no law is "rule". slippery slope. perception of authority should not be diluted if possible.

seems the nation state's reach has started to exceed it's grasp....

I've never understood the problem some people have with hate crimes. Don't we already have plenty of crimes where the only differentiator is mental state or intent? Hard to see how a hate crime classification is any different than, say, Murder 1 versus Murder 2.

I would assume it's a perceived sense of lack of fairness in the sentencing; to be clear, I share your position on hate crimes. They exist for the same reason that we have both Murder and Manslaughter charges, because our system of law considers intent as part of the sentencing.

But it is not hard to see how some would view such laws as unfair. Intent can be difficult to prove and it requires interpretation; if you believe in clear cut and easily understandable laws, then naturally Hate Crimes and other such laws probably seem like a bad idea, and I get why that is frustrating and even intimidating with how fast gossip can travel. The system itself is built with release valves, but it's likely not much comfort for the wrongly accused.

I think that's a separate problem, however, which is just exacerbated by perceptions of laws like Hate Crimes as opposed to being caused by the laws themselves.

Because hate crime isn't easily defined. Some things are obvious but a lot aren't.

> all the same laws are applicable and fraud is fraud

No, it's not the same when you can use pseudonyms and provide fake data with the intent of deceiving someone.

> what is more interesting is that a variety of traditional control mechanisms appear to be ineffective at stopping the two voluntary parties from interacting whereas for banking and brokerages they are sufficient.

Fraud is not two voluntary parties interacting, it's one party stealing someone's money without their consent

> but how would you even enforce a law requiring specific criteria for an ICO when an anonymous 14 year old kid anywhere in the world can do it in 20 minutes??!

Admittedly I'm not sure, but my off the cuff thought is that you seize assets and prevent cashing out. Any wallet associated with a dubious ICO could be tracked and anyone that facilitates transactions for them could be targeted. If an exchange facilitates their cashing out they will have their assets seized; if a tumbling service receives assets from those wallets they will be subject to criminal action; if a bank facilitates a cash out they will be banned from participating in the US financial system etc.

Honestly at the end of the day it doesn't really matter. At this rate ICOs will either be outright banned or anyone with half a brain will stay far away from them and the hype will die out.

I’ve noticed two things around fraudulent ICOs:

- the actual identity of the people behind them is not known; they are often pretending to be developers with Eastern Europe;

- they are presumably outside of a jurisdiction that their victims would be familiar with.

This probably means that a simple fix could be to demand to verify and publish the identity of the people behind such projects. Whether a shell corporation based in the US could raise money without clarifying who actually owns them and whether that structure allows enforcing fraud is a more nuanced question that I cannot answer. But I can answer this: new laws are probably not the solution. Extradition treaties might help but are unlikely.

Viewed solely from a US perspective, no new laws are needed; rather the SEC needs to enforce existing laws.

Internationally I suspect we need a better framework for handling cases where person in country A advertises securities in an organisation set up in country B to people in country C, via an organisation that operates in country D.