Read

Dear S.E.C

| Published:
A young man (a mentee) recently graduated from Harvard University with a job offer as an investment banker. He did his due diligence and would like to invest in a start-up company. But he also knows he can't invest in a "start-up" due to the rule that says only "accredited investors" are allowed. On the other hand, there is a high school dropout, who makes millions of dollars as a star in reality-TV shows. Her best resume for landing roles in networks like Bravo, is her foul mouth, scandalous and provocative lifestyle. She is an "accredited investor" based on her income and the "LEGAL" definition of the phrase. The point here is not to "name-call" people based on their level of education or way of life but if anyone reading this doesn't see something wrong with this picture, they are simply lying to themselves.

The law won't allow regular people to invest $10 in a startup company but these same regulators will allow people to walk down the street and spend $100 on lotto tickets or scratch-off.

1. If the goal is to truly "protect the poor" from loosing their money through investments, why not start by ending things like "power-ball" lottery or scratch-off tickets?
2. Who are we really protecting if things like lotto is heavily promoted to the poor even when we know they have a 99.99 percent chance of loosing the money that they play with?
3If someone is going to loose money by investing in a legitimate company or business, shouldn't it be their decision to make?

I guess this explains why liquor and lotto stores are strategically located and mostly zoned in poor or low income neighborhood, making it more accessible to the target audience. Let's be honest, laws like these are not meant to protect anyone. They are mostly created to make the financially wealthy wealthier while keeping the rest of society blinded from reality. You CAN protect people without these kinds of restrictions. Companies should be able to decide if they want investments from the "big boys" or from the "little guy" through simple avenues like crowd-funding. The title of this piece says: "Dear S.E.C" because regulations like these are championed by the Security Exchange Commission (S.E.C). Yes, they do a great job in regulating our financial system but most of it is geared towards favoring the wealthy. This is why you can easily count in one hand the number of people who happen to be richer than the rest of the country combined. Don't tell me that all of it is from "hard work..." - I happen to know a lot of smart hard working Americans who can't put three meals a day on the table from their salary.

There are people who are trying to make smart choices with their money. This group includes the wealthy and the poor. A startup company like Uber was a no brainer for most "regular people" who understood the meaning of ride sharing. These regular folks didn't have 5 Lamborghini sitting in their driveway so they get it. If you invested $1k in Uber, you will most likely have about $1M today. The wealthy among us who reluctantly invested, are now counting their gains. But if you are a business savvy person making regular income like the example of the young man above, you are automatically disqualified from investing in a startup company like Uber; well, only until the early investors are done making more money than they can handle. With this simple example, I believe most people will agree that the definition of "accredited" investors is outdated and needs an amendment. Stock investors speak Portfolio and Crypto investors speak Blockfolio. Regardless of what side you're Holding or HODLing, this piece is for you. It is time to demand a change.

www.abrahaminetianbor.com
A few years ago when Robinhood launched a free trading platform, I said that the "big boys" like Fidelity and E-Trade just met their match. It was only a matter of time before they join the club of eliminating "greedy" unnecessary and meaningless fees. With each of these and more now following Robinhood's footstep by eliminating meaningless trading fees, I hope they will also follow in understanding the digitized world we now live in. Ten years from now when other countries like Switzerland are benefiting from the foundation they are now creating with digital currency, we're going to be pointing fingers saying that they stole from us just like we are pointing fingers at China right now. China was smart enough to realize very early that the world is turning into a global market and they took advantage of it. We sat back and watch just as we are now watching these digital assets from the sideline. But uncle Sam sure loves to cash those checks from digital assets. If digital asset is as bad as people are being led to believe, why give guidelines on filing taxes on these assets and then cash the checks? Here we are with a chance to capture and lead a new tech but we're having meaningless debates that is aimed at excluding everyday people from benefiting once again.

The Key to making progress in whatever you do in life, is knowing when to make inevitable changes for the better. The S.E.C can start the future now instead of chasing the wind. I'm yet to hear a meaningful reason for going after the Gram Token just days before the launch of the open network - SMH. Get with the program; make positive changes where need be. Punish the guilty ones and those with bad intents and move forward. But don't loose sight of what the future holds or HODLs.



Disclaimer: I am not a CPA or your financial adviser. Do not contact me with any financial advise because it will be ignored and/or deleted. I choose to make this post because it falls within the scope of the categories on my website. Any product or services that may have been mentioned is NOT a recommendation and definitely NOT sponsored directly or indirectly by anyone. I have the right to express my opinions based on my experiences and this is exactly what I did in this message to the SEC.

Copyright © Abraham Inetianbor All Right Reserved