"That could push the industry toward consolidation"
Based on history this is not a possibility but a certainty.
The larger players - who grew because of limited regulations - will start supporting stricter regulation and compliance structures in order to increase the barrier of entry with the excuse of "Oh we learned our lesson, you are right". The hypocrisy is crazy but it makes sense from a capitalistic perspective.
That is part of the ‚first mover advantage‘. Sometimes operating and experimenting in grey zones before they become regulated.
The European and especially German approach of regulating pre-emptive might be more fair, but apparently it also stifles innovation, as we can observe. Almost no significant players from Europe and Germany.
I'm late to the party but I wonder if this is the same for advanced/professional traders compared to retail investors. Thanks for sparking some thoughts !
Not really, otherwise services that host user-generated content, like youtube, wouldn't exist.
What a hosting service needs to provide is a way for the user to flag content + provide an "acceptable" response time.
Another approach, a more proactive approach, is for the content owners to share the digital "finger print" of the IP (movies, music, etc.) with the hosting service, so that the hosting service can scan uploaded files and compare them.
The "risk takers" are not taking at any risk at all. What's the chance they end up on the street, or even suffer personal financial stress about their life? That they will have to move, sell their car, home, etc. It's 0%.
But I guess we first have to agree on "who" we are taking about - is it the company itself or the owner / shareholders ?
Back to your question, yes that could happen in several different cases. But of course the risk/benefit is not split 50/50 (nor 0 risk, 100 upside, as you said), in reality the future outcome depends on both internal and external events.
Even the richest(?) man in the world was relatively close to loosing it all;
Is it an offer to become a shareholder without actually buying any shares? That would be absolutely great, but unfortunately, it doesn't work this way.
That's the beauty of it, you can choose to spend you money how you want!
You wouldn't want all your earnings to be in stocks, you want liquidity.
For example investing your earned money into a public company, or buying food.
Based on history this is not a possibility but a certainty.
The larger players - who grew because of limited regulations - will start supporting stricter regulation and compliance structures in order to increase the barrier of entry with the excuse of "Oh we learned our lesson, you are right". The hypocrisy is crazy but it makes sense from a capitalistic perspective.