Why haitch verified Kids for issuing assets? or its any misunderstanding going on!!
i think @haitch as the forum owner should varify people to allow them to advertise hear and if a minor wants to then they should have a parent or guardian concent with varified info as well to ensure they are fully aware of what the minor is involved with, as long as that is done i dont even see a reason why @haitch should have to label them as a minor in his process. shure it's tec more risky to invest in a company opperated by a child. but in the end everything is a risk. i personaly have lost 5x more $$ playing at burst casino that all of the scams i got taken by combined as far as the minors i have Made $$ investing with the two assets i hold by them. what it boils down to in the long is a legal issue and @haitch needs to insure that he protects himself and this forum from legal blowback, by covering the parent/legal guardian concent correctly and informing them of what the minor is asking permission for. as for the community sure it may be nice to know who is or is not a minor but as long as they covered any legal issues with @haitch i dont see why it should be manditory to label them as such. and leave it as volintary info
Luke and cjellis are New Zealand citizens, and as such can setup businesses as individuals known as sole traders at any age.
"How does being a sole trader work?
A sole trader usually has no formal or legal processes to set up the business. The owner/manager is personally entitled to all profits, but is also personally liable for all business taxes and debts."
This statement is from the New Zealand Tax Department. NZ IRD Dept
Although having 16 year olds running an asset is questionable, it's perfectly legal under NZ law.
Sir 90% of countries have a legal age that vary from 18 to 25 if someone see no objection in minor running assets they can invest their,crypto is a global network so we should go with majority hopefully like we believe you take best decision in favour of community!! voting is going on and we can see majority of voting else depend on your decision...
@dvndr007 Seriously, he just said its completely legal. Personally im all for it and just picked up a bunch of cheap energizer assets. These kids deserve a chance to set up their future as much as anyone else.
@Roses Well age is a factor ... but i know some 30+ who still behave like kids ... so i guess there are also professional 16 year olds :-)
If asset investors are skeptic, they should just ask the issuer ... every asset can turn out as scam, only protection is the reputation of a user. Verification is no guarantee, just a additional trust factor.
My opinion is this, can/should we stop kids from creating assets? No. But I do believe that to be Verified you must be at least 18 years of age. This still allows "kids" to take part in Burst and do their own projects while protecting investors by not allowing the "big money assets" to be run by children.
And by "Big Money Asset" I mean any Verified Asset because let's face it most of the Verified Assets get large investments
In fact IF we place an age limit on Verification I'd be tempted to create a "Junior Incubator Asset" that would invest in minor run assets and act as a kind of Index for philanthropists/VCs that want to support young asset owners without the hassle of weeding out which assets are run by who.
Just brainstorming here, that could be a totally horrible idea lol
@socal It should be simpler than that .. I don't care who issues the asset as much as I care how my money will come back ..
So just get verified to show trust and pay the Escrow to guarantee payback and provide information on how you will generate money .. Might tell everyone whom you are and how old is not related but might be vital as well .. at the end of day its investor's decision to take the risk.
@socal That's actually a really good idea either way, it would give the community a way to support the younger members, while still knowing what theyre getting into.
I wouldn't point the finger at Haitch either, crypto is supposed to be the wild west where everything goes..BUT because the kids are say under 17 or 18, maybe in future we should just now that asset is provided by a minor, not yet of legal age and let the investor do his/her due diligence. I have seen many budding entrepreneurs starting very young BUT handing over money to a younger person MIGHT seem a tad bit more risky, but on the other hand I got ripped off by OLDER DEVS lol hard and fast so even age I think doesn't come into it as much as human decency and integrity..I know kids who are 16 and 17 and have a better brain hinged on them than 50 year olds.. Just yeah maybe if they arr minors in age, we should just know about it in advance..that's my 2 bursts on that..