I'm questioning the amount of work required as the burden, not the humans. IIRC, the SEC filings require multi-thousand dollar fees. Many government services do not (or not at that level). Do you believe all of those other government services are making people work without pay? I don't think it's fair that you blindly assume the fees are equal to the administrative costs when it seems clear to me they are set at a level to detract the action.

How many government services require hours of work by lawyers per application?

If you can't cough up a few thousand dollars or take our a small business loan to hire some lawyers, why should I believe that you're trustworthy enough to skirt regulations?

I'm saying the application shouldn't require hours of work by lawyers any more than filing for an LLC or my tax filings require individual lawyer review.

In my head, I read the last statement like "why should the law trust you if you don't have enough money, and why should you be allowed to do something without the law's trust?" I believe enforcement should be reactive on regulation skirting within reason. Akin to an audit, an arrest, or anything else. You agree to abide by laws, you may even sign something or fill out a form to that effect. That there is an extra step to see if you "really" agree seems to be a way to artificially limit filing counts. I admit I am not that knowledgeable on possible history where too many did fraudulent filings requiring this individual-lawyer-review preemption.

> I admit I am not that knowledgeable on possible history where too many did fraudulent filings requiring this individual-lawyer-review preemption.

So youre criticizing an institution while being ignorant of the conditions that caused that institution to come about? I suspect you’re not alone in this thread but this kind of ahistoricity makes it impossible to have any kind of reasonable civic discourse. Democracy demands that we educate ourselves. Read about the Great Depression, the creation of the SEC and why it was needed in the first place. The current situation with ICOs where you have some legitimate businessses and some scams advertising themselves to Main Street investors is very similar to the situation with securities before the SEC.

Sigh. No, I specifically said I am not aware of the historical reason that preemptive gatekeeping was chosen in lieu of normal enforcement. I am unsure how you read it as why the SEC came about. Regardless, it was a tongue in cheek way to say it's an abnormal law enforcement approach not based on failure/need.

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to read your claims uncharitably. I'm not sure I get your point now even though you've told me you were being sarcastic.

> I am unsure how you read it as why the SEC came about.

Visiting your original statement: > I admit I am not that knowledgeable on possible history where too many did fraudulent filings requiring this individual-lawyer-review preemption.

This "possible history where too many did fraudulent filings" is the history immediately preceding the creation of the SEC, the period before and during the Great Depression. Things like ICO scams are exactly what the SEC was created to respond to. Securities with no inherent value driven by speculation. I'm sure many will argue that this is unfair to the law abiding ICOs and that's true. But the SEC prevents a deluge of fraudulent securities from taking peoples money and doing the damage in the first place.

"I admit I am not that knowledgeable on possible history where too many did fraudulent filings requiring this individual-lawyer-review preemption."

I feel you really, really do need to make yourself familiar with that before chastising everyone for not agreeing with your position on these regulations. And if you want to argue that they shouldn't apply, then you need to think long and hard about what makes this situation different, and not just because it's "on a computer".

It's a bad way to enforce these laws. I didn't chastise anyone for disagreeing nor did I say anything was different because something happens on a computer. And I never said the regulations shouldn't apply, but that I think they should be enforced like, say, tax or employment regulations and punish the offenders instead of artificially limiting the players. Maybe you're referring to someone else's comment?

Can you help me become familiar with the historical SEC failure that prevents them from accepting applications for non-accredited investment without strict preemptive oversight? Or more simply why can't I register a security like I register a company? Because my historical understanding is RegD has been there since the beginning of the SEC.

You can. Look at the JOBS Act. There is a provision allowing you to raise money with far laxer rules than going public. Really the only thing you need is a quarterly audited report. And if you can't get that, then no, you should not be raising money.

I had read that it costs several thousand per quarter for those audited reports. Still Title IV is a step forward, I agree. Granted others get to raise money from VCs or crowdfunding without those, just not securities.

If you've got evidence to back up that claim, feel free. Remember, however, that the people the SEC employs for doing this are expensive.