2/ In the US, investor accreditation is based on existing financial status. Accreditation = $200,000 as an individual/ $300,000 as a couple for the previous 2 years OR having >$1m in net assets. https://t.co/EW6MxcRK41
— Nathaniel Whittemore (@nlw) August 10, 2018
4/ Of course, it doesn’t take much to punch holes in either argument. Accreditation doesn’t come with rules re:% that can be invested, so risk of total failure remains. On the idea that wealth = technical sophistication, history is littered with examples that prove otherwise.
— Nathaniel Whittemore (@nlw) August 10, 2018
6/ @_Kevin_Pham has put the cost of accredited rules in more personal terms. https://t.co/wOHE8twwqm
— Nathaniel Whittemore (@nlw) August 10, 2018
8/ @VitalikButerin, meanwhile, pointed out that not only do wealth-based accreditation rules enshrine plutocracy, but that they also make it more likely that small investors fall prey to schemes and scams because those are the only deals available to them. https://t.co/Nl65UjN3VH
— Nathaniel Whittemore (@nlw) August 10, 2018
10/ As crypto projects have gotten increasingly concerned about regulatory action, they’ve shifted their focus to using the tried and true Reg D exemption to raise in private sale rounds from exclusively accredited investors. https://t.co/5w783PXOXD
— Nathaniel Whittemore (@nlw) August 10, 2018
12/ @ricburton put one of the problems with this scenario in a different context. Ultimately, people are looking for financial mobility and opportunity, and are limited by what they can put their money into. https://t.co/DX1RjTXEAj
— Nathaniel Whittemore (@nlw) August 10, 2018
14/ What, then, is the alternative? A bill currently in the Senate would open the possibility of a knowledge/expertise-based approach to accreditation to complement the current wealth rules, which @propelforward summarized: https://t.co/JgzMFDehSd
— Nathaniel Whittemore (@nlw) August 10, 2018
16/ Knowledge-based accreditation is an idea whose time has come. There are simply too many good reasons to do it, and too many solutions to any logistical problem associated with it. I wrote about this in @21Cryptos this month. pic.twitter.com/2iYUH19XFK
— Nathaniel Whittemore (@nlw) August 10, 2018
18/ But that still doesn’t answer the more fundamental question of whether we want to continue to enshrine a division that has as much or more to do with circumstance than capacity, or instead build pathways that lead to more self-determination and opportunity.
— Nathaniel Whittemore (@nlw) August 10, 2018
19/ Put that way, it doesn’t seem like much of a hard question at all.
— Nathaniel Whittemore (@nlw) August 10, 2018
Comments are closed