But since Deggen would set the rules and not accept any shady offers, I would not see a problem.-
You are in full control. The investor depends solely on you and the deal is mainly set by what you accept. Nobody can force oneself into your income!
Post by twetch#1512
Every exchange has too sides. The problem is if you give the investee full control then you attract psychopaths who feel it is their duty to use their superior intelligence to defraud the ill informed investors.
What the chain says
- Block
- 635 305
- Time
- 2020-05-17T10:43:25Z
- Signer
- 1Dhq3bN66ZdJYhkztxdqnCoNsc8HYNhnPk
- App
- twetch
- Type
- post
- Content type
- text/plain
- Name in tx
- twetch#1512
Fields the transaction did not carry are omitted. Open the payload to see the bytes as stored.
Signed by
1Dhq3bN66ZdJYhkztxdqnCoNsc8HYNhnPk VerifiedReplies (3)
I dont see it as our job to protect ill informed investors
ill informed investors = bad investors
But thats a whole other discussion about how much regulation should be in investment in general.
It's not your job, no. However, if you want to live in a productive society then it is in your best interests to minimise poor investment decisions, because of the opportunity cost this has on the economy as a whole.
Totally. There can be regulations for the "invest in person"-thing, too. Would never say this should be completely unregulated. It is doable