Something like Filecoin is necessary to make IPFS what it could become, I recognize there are huge unsolved problems with it but it's not legitimately so that they can't be solved. It's worth a shot and sophisticated private investors took bets on this with eyes wide open, followed by the public of course which many consider problematic (I don't).
There are complaints about the discounts private investors got etc but at the end of the day I'm glad this is research getting funded and I think calling it a scam is straight up wrong. We'll see I guess.
Yeah exactly. Anyone who has engaged with the protocol knows there are huge unknowns - they're acknowledged in the whitepaper. They have theoretical solutions which are often discussed in public on Github and Gitter, and they've gotten past many large hurdles already as a team. I think there's a chance.
Importantly, if Filecoin were usable right now to guarantee storage and retrievability of files, I have use cases I'd use that for right this second.
It's a little different I guess since the public invested too. I think that's a good thing though but I may regret this comment if crypto (specifically Filecoin) goes totally sideways. The public should be allowed to take risks though!
The public did invest under the same rules as a standard VC deal, i.e. Reg D. Though I guess with additional accredited investor verification on account of the general solicitation rules, which don't typically apply in VC deals.
> The public should be allowed to take risks though!
I have complex feelings about this. For example, I wanted to participate in the Filecoin ICO, and I could not because I don't meet the accredited investor requirements. On the micro level, I was a bit disappointed. It's my money, if I want to give it to a charlatan, I should be able to. On the macro level, I understand that it makes sense that most people like me shouldn't be investing in companies that aren't required to make any disclosures, financials or otherwise, particularly when people like me aren't really in a position to negotiate for that information. In my mind, protecting mom and pop is still a worthwhile goal.
So while I definitely agree that the public should be allowed to take risks, it's relevant that there are quite a few markets that they have unimpeded access to. And I'm generally sympathetic to the SEC's desire to shield the least sophisticated investors from the riskiest investments.
There are complaints about the discounts private investors got etc but at the end of the day I'm glad this is research getting funded and I think calling it a scam is straight up wrong. We'll see I guess.