Slashdot Mirror


The SEC Created Its Own Scammy ICO To Teach Investors a Lesson (theverge.com)

In its latest effort to fend off cryptocurrency scams, the Securities and Exchange Commission launched its own fake initial coin offering website today called the Howey Coin to warn people against fraudulent cryptocurrencies. From a report: The name is a tongue-in-cheek reference to the Howey Test that the SEC uses to determine whether an investment is a security, which the Commission would therefore have legal jurisdiction over. Click 'Buy Coins Now' on the Howey Coins site and you'll be redirected to an SEC page that states: "We created the bogus HoweyCoins.com site as an educational tool to alert investors to possible fraud involving digital assets like crypto-currencies and coin offerings." It even has a white paper [PDF].

37 of 75 comments (clear)

  1. Fake Mining Resources = Fake Hosting Resources? by jgaynor · · Score: 2

    Site is hosed, Bro.

    1. Re:Fake Mining Resources = Fake Hosting Resources? by olsmeister · · Score: 1

      LOL. Slashdotted.

    2. Re:Fake Mining Resources = Fake Hosting Resources? by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 3, Funny

      Clearly we should be suspicious of Howie coins if such a pseudo-DOS is so easily effective.

      Yet I don't wanna be left behind again, so maybe I will fight through it.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    3. Re:Fake Mining Resources = Fake Hosting Resources? by sjames · · Score: 1

      That's all the salivating would be investors jumping to get in on the ground floor.

    4. Re:Fake Mining Resources = Fake Hosting Resources? by jellomizer · · Score: 4, Funny

      I don't think Slashdot can bring down a Raspberry Pi running a web server. It just isn't as big as it use to be.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    5. Re:Fake Mining Resources = Fake Hosting Resources? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      there are dozens of us
      DOZENS

  2. I don't get it by 110010001000 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Where do I send my money?

  3. Slashdotted? by TFlan91 · · Score: 1

    Site is taking forever to load.

  4. J Walter Weatherman by sexconker · · Score: 3, Funny

    This guy's arm just came off!

    And THAT'S why... you don't invest in fucking scam coins.

  5. Communism: the Great Leap Forward off a cliff by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    What work are you doing? Complaining on the internet using a computer that was made possible by other peoples' innovation, hard work and CAPITAL?

    Perhaps you'd prefer the island paradise of Cuba or the lush mountains of North Korea.

    This message brought to by the hundreds of millions of people murdered by communist regimes in the 20th century.

    https://fee.org/

  6. McWhortle? by SpencerWilliams · · Score: 1

    I nearly died laughing. That fake white paper is a nice touch, too.

  7. Isn't this creating bogus data? by shaitand · · Score: 1, Interesting

    This is going to result in clicks that aren't from people who bought into the site wanting to buy coins. That's a bunch of bogus data and hits artificially supporting the SEC's stand. Just watch, later they'll come out with numbers for how many people tried to buy coins from their bogus ICO site and almost all the hits will be from people rubbernecking after reading an article such as this.

    1. Re:Isn't this creating bogus data? by gravewax · · Score: 2

      so far nearly all ICO's are one kind of scam or another, or at best a really REALLY bad investment. sadly people are ignoring this and stil being dumb shits and buying into ICO's, this sort of site regardless of the data collected will probably create some much needed publicity. Though anyone dumb enough to fall for an ICO at this point in time thoroughly deserves to be parted with their money.

    2. Re:Isn't this creating bogus data? by shaitand · · Score: 1

      The bad thing is that there is such a thing as a legitimate ICO. If I discover/invent some new breakthrough in how a cryptocurrency works and develop a genuinely novel solution based on it an ICO would be a valid way to launch it.

      Unfortunately, creating yet another coin that is simply using the ethereum blockchain is what almost all of these ICOs are doing. I don't think that is necessarily a scam but I'd agree it is a horrible investment.

    3. Re:Isn't this creating bogus data? by shaitand · · Score: 1

      Maybe there is something about the way these ICO are working I'm not aware of. My understanding is they are simply a way to invest in the initial supply of the cryptocurrency, some or all of which is presupplied by the company who designed it... afterward the success or failure of the currency would be within the control of those who bought it and have nothing to do with the original company. If the company walks away with what they made in this process they haven't defrauded anyone, it is what people do with it afterward and the design of the intrinsic system that makes them boom or bust.

      Bitcoin or Bitcoin Cash doesn't suddenly stop being something I can sell candy bars for or purchase candy bars with no matter what company goes belly up or walks away. That would still be true if the initial creators pre-mined a bit so they'd get something for their efforts any more than those who initially invested in a company should get nothing if the company goes public.

      The big myth was that just because early investors (who take the most risk) getting rewarded automatically makes something a ponzi scheme.

    4. Re:Isn't this creating bogus data? by shaitand · · Score: 1

      What is to think out? You design a new and well thought out novel currency. Investors agree it is well thought out and will be successful. You release into the wild at which point the world agrees and begins using it and therefore value goes up or they don't.

      If you believe "crypto" means digital currency you probably shouldn't be invested in anything even remotedly related to it. Crypto means cryptography... it is the thing behind that paidlock icon saying your connection to this browser is secure. If you don't know that you are a business man who knows nothing about this technology and shouldn't be investing in technology without people who are actual security engineers not only advising you but telling you what to do.

    5. Re:Isn't this creating bogus data? by shaitand · · Score: 1

      "So you agree then, there are NONE that are not scams or really ill advised investments."

      I've never seen anything with a purpose called an ICO. I'm just saying if you give it a decade for the craze to cool down it would be a valid option for releasing something that is actually worthwhile. Saying ICO's are scams is like saying real estate investments are scams. It is a popular vehicle for scammers but that doesn't mean the tool itself is a scam. So many idiots falsely called Bitcoin a ponzi scheme that premining any of a new coins pool will make everyone ignore the actual tech and blacklist you so if you want to be rewarded like you would be for creating any other amazing and innovative thing you've only got so many options.

  8. Re:Dumbfounded by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Who does this appeal to?

    The same people that bought CDOs from that other scam the SEC created: Goldman-Sachs.

  9. I don't know why I bother, but ... by raymorris · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Here's the thing - individually hand-crafted items are really expensive. You couldn't afford to buy even a fraction of the stuff you buy, if everything was still made the way it was made in the 18th century. Especially if it were carried on tiny little boats rather than huge container ships. Most of what you have, you can have only because of tools, factories, machines - stuff that increases productivity, expensive stuff. Multi-million dollar items like ships and factories are needed in order to produce your TV, your clothes, and everything you that a serf in 1818 didn't have. Foundries, fiber optic networks, etc are all the goose the lays the golden egg for society, the reason you don't pick cotton for $3 / day.

    Shifting gears a little, when were young you may or may not have been taught that saving up is a really good idea, because shit happens. If you have a car, you'll have car problems. You can either scramble to come up with the money to fix it AFTER it breaks, maybe via a pawn shop, or you can put a $10 aside each paycheck BEFORE the car breaks and not get fucked over by a pawn shop. "I can't afford to save $10 of my paycheck", some say. But you CAN afford to pay a lot more than that to a pawn shop? Maybe when your car breaks down you'll use a pay day lender, because you can afford to pay back twice as much? If you're broke, you REALLY can't afford to not aside a few bucks for when shit happens.

    You know what other kind of shit happens? If you keep living, you will get old. Really old. Putting a few dollars aside from each check so you have it when you're old is a really friggin good idea too.

    So we have a need for really expensive things which produce other good stuff, expensive things like factories, power plants, steel mills, trains, ships etc. Those things are called "capital goods". In order for you to get cool shit, we need a bunch of money to buy capital goods (things like motorcycle factories). Also we have a bunch of people saving up money for when shit happens, and saving up more money for when they get old. Pretty much everyone who both a) isn't stupid and b) was raised by someone who had a clue, is saving some money aside. So there is a shitload of money sitting around being saved up.

    Here's a great idea. Instead of having that saved money sitting around getting moldy until you retire in 30 years, why don't we use that saved money to build useful stuff like factories, trains, foundries, power plants, and other things that produce good stuff for everyone? That way everyone can get more good stuff, cheaper. Seem like *maybe* a good idea?

    There are two alternatives to buying capital goods with savings. You can have a society without any capital goods, a primitive, tribal society. Or you can have a society in which very few very, very wealthy people can afford to personally buy ships, build factories, etc.

    So I assume we don't want only Donald Trump getting any benefit from machinery and stuff, while the rest of us live as serfs, picking cotton buy hand. Okay, cool - give me the money you've saved so I can go build a factory. What? You don't want to hand over your money? But if you do, everybody, society as a whole, will be a lot better off. We can buy a $2 million combine harvester instead of all of us picking peanuts one-by-hand, by hand. Yeah, most people don't want to hand over their savings for the betterment of society.

    Okay how about this. If you let us use the $500 you have saved, if you want it back a year from now we'll give you back $550. If you don't end up needing it until you retire, we'll pay you back $3,300. Sound better? You put in $500 now toward buying capital goods, you get $3,300 back later. That's a lot better deal for you, a deal that most people will take, if they've been saving at all.

    That's investment, that's capitalism. Saving up for a rainy day like your grandma told you too, then pooling those savings to get useful stuff that makes life better for everyone. That's why we're not subsistence farmers in the US, because we invested and bought machines and other capital goods.

    1. Re: I don't know why I bother, but ... by peragrin · · Score: 2

      Actually that's a scam. If you guarantee a return that is a scam. Real investors can only hope for actual return. Knowing that a percentage will lose them Money.

      That is why Wall Street isn't investment. When you buy a stock the company doesn't get any benefit. You are buying someone else's stake. Not supporting that company.

      However if that company goes under your shates are worth something.

      In crypto there is no support. They can't sell the office furniture to get you pennies on the dollar. So when it goes down you aren't even holding a paper to burn

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    2. Re:I don't know why I bother, but ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      you were good up until that part about getting $550 back in a year of $3300 back by retirement. Unfortunately the way that investments and capitalism work there is no way to actually guarantee that you will get money back on your investment. Essentially it is not saving but instead hedging a bet that you can pick the right technology that will benefit society at large and thus create a return on your initial investment. If that money doesnt benefit society as a whole then you end up loosing that money, so in the end it is more like gambling than your conflated idea of "saving because grandma told you to".

      Then there is the problem of who determines what is actually good for society as a whole. The people who actually end up being the movers and shakers that influence that idea usually have enough of their own money in the game such that they are not impartial actors, as can be seen with the number of scams that have been happening over the years. Now combine that with the fact that politics has become a pay to play enterprise and the fact that politicians regulate and control the general direction of society and what is considered good for us and you are a long way from your idealistic view of what investments and capitalism is. This is why you continue to bother to define it for people, because you know that it isn't the reality of today but yet an idealism that shares a significant amount of similarities with most modern religions. This is also why you will continue to get push-back as well, the current system is completely different from the idealistic system and it doesn't work for the majority, instead working for the few who have the ability to influence and move the markets to guarantee their own personal return regardless of the benefit for society.

    3. Re: I don't know why I bother, but ... by raymorris · · Score: 2

      Actually you *can* guarantee it. Most people don't completely guarantee it, because low-risk has much higher returns than no-risk. One incredibly simple way to guarantee the outcome is to be long and short on the same stock, at the same price. Obviously you can get far more complex, such as being short and long at different prices, and thereby guarantee whatever you want to guarantee, such as "a gain between 3% and 4%, no higher and no lower".

      > Real investors can only hope for actual return

      That would be real speculators, aka gamblers. Real investors do things like buy a mutual fund that has 100 well-established companies like Proctor & Gamble, McDonald's, Walmart, CVS, etc. These are companies with a long track record of stable performance, and you're not assuming anything about the performance of any of them. You're assuming only that some will do well, some will do badly, and over the long term the general trend will be that many of them continue to more or less do what they've always done. That is to say, you're figuring that EITHER McDonald's will continue selling burgers, OR Walmart will keep selling socks and soups as always. It's rather unlikely indeed that all of those companies would all suddenly crash together. If they do, that's probably because of global nuclear war, and you have bigger problems than your investment.

      > When you buy a stock the company doesn't get any benefit. You are buying someone else's stake. Not supporting that company.

      Close, but not exactly. Early in the life of the company, at the IPO, you are of course definitely buying it straight from the company. After that, you might buy it from the company, or might buy it from someone else. Either way supports the company. It's not obvious how buying it from someone else supports the company, so that bears explanation.

      The company, and only the company, can create new stock. In fact the company created the stock out of thin air. So if the stock is worth $500 / share, the company can issue 1,000 more shares and get $500,000 for them. The company created it for nothing, and sells it for half a million. Clearly that puts cash into the company. Often the company creates extra shares ahead of time just for this purpose, putting them in their back pocket to sell later. They can also create shares later, called an at-the-market. Obviously, the higher the stock price, the more the company makes selling stock. Your purchase (technically your "bid") pushes the price slightly higher. That may be stock they held back in reserve, or at-the-market.

    4. Re: I don't know why I bother, but ... by Dare+nMc · · Score: 1

      > That is why Wall Street isn't investment. When you buy a stock the company doesn't get any benefit. You are buying someone else's stake. Not supporting that company.

      If I buy a local restaurant that is for sale and could be bought by anyone, to shut it down, rename it... and I buy and keep it working with the same people, is that not an investment? The Stock owners are by definition THE owners, buying stock is purchasing direct from the owners of a company, directly benefiting some owners, indirectly benefit all owners by supporting the valuation of the company. Owners like Warren Buffet directly purchase shares of companies, to move them in ways to get them to make more money, get them to work together, remove the obstacles, leverages the values to expand... If I buy shares in BRK, direct from Warren, or in the company directly, I am throwing my $ support behind them. I am encouraging the activities if those in charge, I am giving the large owners the option to take some rewards for their hard work by cashing out some, and sharing their future work with me.

      Also almost all companies have float shares, shares they can sell to directly fund activities, as well as using their market value to borrow against, or acquire more companies through mergers.

      Also by buying stock of successful companies, and keeping their stock value in line with their internal value, it allows the current owners to get value from the growth of that company, without breaking up the company, or using profit to directly pay. IE if they pay dividends, I can choose to reinvest, if they don't pay, no difference, it is just that the money is being directly reinvested internally.

  10. How to buy? by krray · · Score: 1

    So, does this mean I can't buy any??

  11. Re:Capitalism at work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    LOL Look at all the little butthurt capitalists replying to this thread. They all have one thing in common: lack of imagination and creativity. Repeating the same falacy again and again: that communism is the only alternative to capitalism.

    Reality check: There ARE existing economic models that work better than capitalism. And they don't involve the government owning anything. Do your homework. But you wont. Cause none of you are interested in actually improving your world. All you care about is being right, proving me wrong, because you hate me.

    Small people with small minds.

  12. All cryptocurrencies are Ponzi Scams by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Are (any) fiat-currency and (any) cryptocurrency really equivalent, as cryptocurrency fans claim?
    For example, US Dollar and Bitcoin are really equals?
    Value/validity/authorization of US dollar is provided/guaranteed by US Government (and in-turn whole US Public)!
    Also, not to mention, US Dollars in any US Bank is insured by US Government!
    What authorization/guarantee/insurance is behind Bitcoin? Nothing!
    Sorry but that is the end of discussion then!

    Why do you think Satoshi Nakamoto is really hiding his identity, if Bitcoin is really such a great innovation?
    He is just someone does not like media/fan attention?
    Or, could it be really because Bitcoin (and all cryptocurrencies followed it) are actually Ponzi Schemes?
    (So he knew very well that law enforcement would come after him sooner or later?!)

    If so-called cryptocurrencies are really good innovation, why they attract so many criminals/criminal activity?
    Could it really be because, all cryptocurrencies themselves are scams, and that is why they attract all kinds of criminals/criminal activity?

    If so-called cryptocurrencies are really currency, why no company/store can use Bitcoin as currency anymore?
    Because the price of Bitcoin proved to be extremely unstable to use as a currency?
    Would the result be different, if Bitcoin replaced by any other "cryptocurrency"?
    Aren't all work the same way?

    If so-called cryptocurrencies are really money; isn't people issuing their own money, illegal already, in all countries?
    If so then, why they are still not banned in all countries?

    Or, they are not actually virtual currency but virtual investment?
    But, if they are actually investment, why we need/want them?
    What would happen to world economy, if people invested in virtual investments, instead of real investments?

    Or, all so-called cryptocurrencies are actually just a modified (made decentralized and paying variable interest) Ponzi Schemes?
    (Price of cryptocurrencies would keep increasing in the long term (by their design), so it is equivalent of paying variable interest to all long term investors.)

    As more and more people invest in cryptocurrencies, it will become harder and harder to ban their trading everywhere!
    All cryptocurrencies need to be banned globally before it is too late!

  13. Look up the word "hedge". You can guarantee by raymorris · · Score: 1

    > Unfortunately the way that investments and capitalism work there is no way to actually guarantee that you will get money back on your investment.

    Actually you *can* guarantee it. Most people don't completely guarantee it, because low-risk has much higher returns than no-risk.

    > Essentially it is not saving but instead hedging a bet that you can pick the right technology that will benefit society at large and thus create a return on your initial investment.

    You used the phrase "hedging a bet" as if it meant "placing a bet". "Hedging a bet" basically means guaranteeing a bet. Suppose the Broncos and the Panthers are playing in the Superbowl. Placing a bet would be putting $100 on the Broncos. Hedging that bet would be ALSO putting $100 on the Panthers. You would be guaranteeing your outcome. You're guaranteed to not lose (or make) any money, assuming even odds on both bets, and the same line.
    Hedges can get much, much more complex, in order to guarantee whatever you want to guarantee, or select any level of risk you wish.

    1. Re:Look up the word "hedge". You can guarantee by thesupraman · · Score: 3, Insightful

      >> Unfortunately the way that investments and capitalism work there is no way to actually guarantee that you will get money back on your investment.
      >Actually you *can* guarantee it. Most people don't completely guarantee it, because low-risk has much higher returns than no-risk.

      Actually no, you cannot. Deflation is a real thing, although it has been a while, and inflation makes most of the 'guaranteed' gains a lie - you are losing real value on your very small returns. This is actually part of the big game plan at present to push the middle class in to more risky investments, which generally end up shoveling the majority of the gains to the primary stakeholders.

      Sure, you can have a company that will 'guarantee your return', but who is guaranteeing that company? hmm? There is no safe bet, especially if there is a real economic downturn.

      The 'problem' is there has not been one for quite a long time - there have been bumps, however governments have plastered over them by protecting the 'too big to fail' companies using public money, and then printing more and more money to inflate out of their problems. The very rich love this, as most of that new money tgushes up pretty quickly to the top, making them somewhat inflation proof, while inflating away the value of the lower classes.

      Your hedging example is quite funny - you think the outcome of an equal bet both ways on a game is no loss? go and check the numbers ;)

      Hedging is a way of trying to minimise risk, often by dealing with others who disagree about the level of risk - but it in no way protects you from a general system failure.

      But yes, you started off well, only losing the plot towards the end with your thoughts of there being safe investments.

      My great grandfather bought a farm in 1912, he lost it in the 20s, and never ever forgot the name of the lawyer who foreclosed on him - it was a very shameful thing back then - the farm was well run and profitable, but economics of farming and debt changed..
      He bought another farm around 1940. Larger, better positioned, for less money... Because the value of farms dropped, significantly.
      Farms were about the MOST solid asset there was back then..

      Many people have forgotten that there are NO safe investments, only considered risks.
      However, many MANY more people have forgotten that if you dont save, dont invest, dont bring value, then expect your net worth to tend to zero (if you are lucky).

    2. Re:Look up the word "hedge". You can guarantee by Headw1nd · · Score: 1

      I would argue that treasury bonds have a guaranteed return*, since the issuer also controls the supply of the currency they will be repaid in. One way or another they will be able to give you the return promised, though the actual value of your payment in real goods might not be what you were hoping for. (*Of course there is always a small chance that the government and/or currency in general may cease to exist, but I believe we can discount that for practical purposes)

  14. A or An? by Tough+Love · · Score: 2

    An SEC page? Doesn't sit right. Personally, I pronounce it "sehk", so "a SEC page". Tough one.

    --
    When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
  15. Re:Taxation is theft by thesupraman · · Score: 1

    No, it is your votes for them that do that.

    Going to complain that YOU didnt vote for THE MAN? Well, I suspect you support one of the two, and they are both THE MAN, in case you had not realized.
    Face it, people are too busy arguing about which minority is the most worthy or not to do anything about the people in power causing the real problems.
    Do you think that is an accident? Interesting..

  16. Surprise ending by raymorris · · Score: 1

    Your entire, fairly long, post seemed like it was going one way, then your final sentence or two made an unexpected turn.

    As long as you end up doing the smart thing, saving and investing, I won argue with you about the other stuff.

  17. Typo: Won't argue with you by raymorris · · Score: 1

    Where I accidentally wrote "won argue with you", that should be "won't argue with you".

  18. Setting the wrong example? by Narcocide · · Score: 1

    I can't help but think that people who fall for this are going to learn two lessons, and one of them is socially destructive.

  19. Re:Stay off our lawn by Narcocide · · Score: 1

    I gotta be honest with you: you're stupid.

  20. Re:I wonder how much money they spent building thi by Cederic · · Score: 1

    A fuck of a lot less than they have to spend investigating and prosecuting the various ICO frauds that are going on.

    This could well come in as a net saving in government expenditure.

  21. Re:Stay off our lawn by gurps_npc · · Score: 1

    I'm sorry, do you think the SEC is making a profit somehow?
      It gets no cut. You sound like a thief complaining about the police.

    --
    excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com