Jake Chervinsky
@jchervinsky
What do you not understand about crypto law or policy that you wish someone would ELI5?
23 replies
65 recasts
447 reactions
Michael Depetrillo
@klassicd
Would the elimination of accredited investor laws solve most of our problems? It seems like it then wouldn't matter what is or isn't a security.
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Jake Chervinsky
@jchervinsky
The opposite, actually! The accredited investor laws are a *deregulatory* exemption allowing issuers to sell securities without complying with the full force of the securities laws (aka IPO). If you eliminate them, you make it even harder. I wrote about this here: https://x.com/jchervinsky/status/1121429980968378368
1 reply
0 recast
2 reactions
Jack
@jackten
I think maybe he means changing the threshold of "accredited investor" to be something more like a knowledge qualification instead of a wealth qualification. Ex: Anyone can become an accredited investor by taking a basic financial literacy test, etc... Would that not be helpful?
2 replies
0 recast
1 reaction
Jake Chervinsky
@jchervinsky
Yes, it would help make private placements (exempt sales of securities) more accessible to retail investors, which would be a big improvement. But it wouldn't avoid the question "are the tokens securities," which would still matter if you want them to do anything interesting onchain other than sit lifeless in a wallet.
0 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Taylor
@skyron.eth
Chris Brummer at Georgetown wrote a very interesting paper on this very idea: Allow people to prove their financial literacy, then give them a token that qualifies them to participate in an investment that historically would have been restricted to 'accredited investors'. The fallacy of the existing system is that it presumes that if you have a lot of money you must know what you are doing with it. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4065143
0 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
