There was a time when Venture Capitalists (VCs) were facing disruption, moaning on papers over whether they might now be out of business, how do they compete, telling each other they might have to give better deals and might have to lower their big gains expectations through Initial Public Offering (IPO) flipping or other start-up exits.
Why compete, however, when you can get the Securities and Exchanges (SEC) commission to rebuild the gated walls with new metaphorical armed guards in front keeping the “peasants” out.
“While ICO funding has almost trickled to zero and some seem to be cautiously stepping away from the industry during this persistent bear market, venture capitalists (VCs) are taking their place, making the most of the opportunity to invest in promising blockchain projects before the fold. We may be facing the prospect of a crypto winter, but it’s a renaissance moment for VCs in blockchain.
In 2018, VCs invested an estimated $2.85 billion USD into 119 blockchain projects in just first three quarters — the most ever in the industry’s history. And despite steady decreases in crypto market capitalization, VC investment saw a 316% increase this past year; a value that’s currently showing no signs of slowing down.”
So says Arul Murugan, Managing Partner of Algo Capital, as he presumably metaphorically looks at the “carnage” of the failed Initial Coin Offerings (ICO) “revolution” and metaphorically waves the VC flag in “victory.”
The peasants have once more been put in their place. Chained to their 9-5 job in some mega-corporation that has no loyalty to man or nation. Divided among labels of immigrant or native, German or English, man or woman, muslim or christian, while the gated ones meet in Davos with just one label “rich.” The politicians too meet in their G20s, globally coordinating, as they build real walls to make the divisive labels have some teeth. The central bankers too globally coordinate in secret meetings in BIS premises. Divisive nationalism for us, a united front for them.
The French, however, are now rising with 85% support from their fellow men and women according to some polls. The far-right claims Yellow Vests is their movement. The far left says its socialism’s moment to shine. The vast majority say they are neither left nor right, it’s just ordinary angry French men and women.
Their number one demand is a people’s parliament, a law making body of 500 ordinary citizens randomly selected through the electoral roll jury style to keep accountable the Davos men.
That somewhat new idea is rising in prominence after it was utilized in Ireland to make a difficult decision on abortion. It left all satisfied, thus raised the question: why not utilize it in other matters or all matters?
The idea of peasants making laws probably has some feeling disgusted, yet as the millennials have found out, the system is currently broken. Peaceful reforms are necessary.
In order to be elected to any position that matters, one requires millions of dollars in funding, raised mainly from the rich who can and do use that as a leverage. Making our representatives not really that representative.
The approval ratings of Congress are at the all-time low of just 20%. The public effectively thinks this body has failed to do their job. Yet the same men and women are returned to Congress for decades. Meaning the public doesn’t really have a way to vote-in a congress they approve of. That’s probably because they get the same two choices every two years as the billionaires fund the same people.
The lack of accountability and the lack of giving feedback to the lawmakers is a problem that has keenly been felt by this space in 2018.
We have detailed often, sometime dryly and sometimes more colorfully, the problems with the Securities Act 1933, a law that is pretty much mirrored in all western jurisdictions.
The injustice there is obvious. No one can invest in a start-up unless they are a bank or very rich, defined as individuals earning $200,000 a year or have a net worth of $1 million plus.
The 1%, basically, whose wealth can keep increasing by investing in these hot start-ups with inequality now surpassing even 1920s levels. The rest are stuck in their 9-5 job, unable to give the market some wage competition by starting their own business due to the as good as non-existent funding options for the initial capital required.
As we made our complaints clear about this law, no one cared nor listened. SEC has promised some guidance and the chairman has stated he thinks there should be a laddered approach, but it’s not SEC that makes the law, Congress makes laws.
Some representatives are apparently to put forward some proposals, but there’s no real way for the public to engage with the process, to say change this bit or add that bit. You have to lobby or protest, but why shouldn’t the ordinary public have real and daily say in matters that directly affect them by basically having a random sample of the public as part of the law making body?
If such body existed, the Securities Act law would have probably been changed long ago when the crowdfunding crowd first complained about it. They made some cosmetic modifications then and we’ll probably get the same thing, with certain laws seemingly impossible to change.
On tax loopholes, for example, they say the matter is very complex, but the main problem is that law makers are generally very rich. The investment prohibitions by the Securities Act, with its exemption for the rich, benefits them greatly. To not get party political here, but Trump is proud of using tax loopholes. Other Congressmen might faint anger, but they probably utilize all those tax loopholes themselves in their many investments.
So we effectively get one law for the many, and another for the rich. This space tried to change that with ICOs, but it could only go so far.
That’s not to say that there weren’t many problems with the ICO process, but there were also many solutions. All of them far superior to the SEC’s closing of gates, keeping the masses out while VCs now party.
Well the masses have now taken to the streets across Europe. Just what their aims are is unclear at this stage, so we are neutral, but we do support them in their one demand for a people’s parliament.
The ordinary people unfortunately currently have as good as no representation whatever in the law making process. They generally have to choose between two usually rich men and women every four years or so, and then their only option is to ask people to protest about one issue or another as the tech companies did for a day in closing their service in protest of net neutrality. Back to normal business the next day.
The millennial generation in particular remains very angry about the fact their older brothers and sisters (they themselves were far too young at the time) could do nothing to stop the Iraq war despite the biggest protests in modern history across the world.
The children have now grown and they demand a solution, with the digital generation, or generation Z as they call them, even more fired up because they of course will hopefully live longer with the good or bad consequences.
The peaceful and obvious solution that can prevent a repeat of a complete blunder, is a people’s parliament. Ordinary mothers and fathers, serving for a year or two or maybe even four years, in rotation.
It is difficult to see what downside this suggestion can have for ordinary citizens, while one can easily see the benefits of direct feedback and of the law making power of ordinary people who are most affected by it.
It may be effective in countering the current design of only the rich making laws generally to their benefit and at the expense of most, with the Securities Act a prime example as far as this space is concerned, while more generally parliament’s approval of the Iraq War in face of wide opposition (a mistake they now all accept, even the chief proponents), and the complete lack of a peaceful people’s power that it showed, remains the chief example of a law making system that is not quite working and needs reforms.