3 ms·

"The Commission has determined not to pursue an enforcement action in this matter based on the conduct and activities known to the Commission at this time" I m

by cal5k 9y ago

"The Commission has determined not to pursue an enforcement action in this matter based on the conduct and activities known to the Commission at this time" I mean... it sounds to me like they did their due diligence. The PDF contains an in-depth look at how existing securities law intersects with what this group was doing. That's exactly what the SEC is supposed to do. DAOs are new and unfamiliar. They looked at what was going on and decided not to pursue further action. That seems quite reasonable to me.

toomim 9y ago
No no, what happened is the DAO imploded on its own a whole year before the SEC even looked at it. The DAO was hacked in June of 2016, and the SEC didn't release that article until July of 2017. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_DAO_(organization) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_DAO_(organization) When the SEC says: > The Commission has determined not to pursue an enforcement action in this matter based on the conduct and activities known to the Commission at this time What they mean is: > We chose not to beat a dead horse, because it's already dead.
- cal5k 9y ago
  I don't see why that matters. They clarified that DAO tokens are securities but decided not to pursue any action for a number of reasons, one of which being (and they've stated this elsewhere) that prior to their clarification there was ambiguity on this issue. The tl;dr is that they are clearly securities under existing law. Now that the SEC has clarified that fact companies are free to issue Tokens if they comply with the law.
- JumpCrisscross 9y ago
  > When the SEC says...what they mean is: we chose not to beat a dead horse, because it's already dead The SEC charged Bernie Madoff's auditors after the scheme had been revealed [1]. In respect of the DAO, the SEC appears to be taking a "wait and see" approach. (With ICOs, on the other hand, we've seen enough.)
  - overdrivetg 9y ago
    [1] http://www.businessinsider.com/sec-charges-madoff-auditor-with-fraud-too-2009-3 http://www.businessinsider.com/sec-charges-madoff-auditor-wi...
tptacek 9y ago
Again: what you can say with authority is that they decided not to pursue action at that time. You have no idea what their future plans are.
- cal5k 9y ago
  True. And if at some point in the future their actions become aggressive and unreasonable, I would have a far less charitable view. I can only judge them based on their actions to date, not what they might do in the future.
- pdpi 9y ago
  Every day that goes by is a day when they could’ve taken action but didn’t. The stuff they publish on the topic all seems reasonably well thought out, and is always consistent with a “we just want you to follow the rules in place even if you’re using novel tech to do things” mentality. Sure, they can pivot into rabid dog mode at any moment, but they’re allowing things to proceed while being aware that it’s gaining more mainstream appeal. The sort of posture you’re advocating is the same sort of scaremongering as the “this is all a Ponzi scheme that will blow up any day now” types are spewing.

by cal5k 9y ago

toomim 9y ago

No no, what happened is the DAO imploded on its own a whole year before the SEC even looked at it. The DAO was hacked in June of 2016, and the SEC didn't release that article until July of 2017. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_DAO_(organization) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_DAO_(organization) When the SEC says: > The Commission has determined not to pursue an enforcement action in this matter based on the conduct and activities known to the Commission at this time What they mean is: > We chose not to beat a dead horse, because it's already dead.

cal5k 9y ago
I don't see why that matters. They clarified that DAO tokens are securities but decided not to pursue any action for a number of reasons, one of which being (and they've stated this elsewhere) that prior to their clarification there was ambiguity on this issue. The tl;dr is that they are clearly securities under existing law. Now that the SEC has clarified that fact companies are free to issue Tokens if they comply with the law.
JumpCrisscross 9y ago
> When the SEC says...what they mean is: we chose not to beat a dead horse, because it's already dead The SEC charged Bernie Madoff's auditors after the scheme had been revealed [1]. In respect of the DAO, the SEC appears to be taking a "wait and see" approach. (With ICOs, on the other hand, we've seen enough.)
- overdrivetg 9y ago
  [1] http://www.businessinsider.com/sec-charges-madoff-auditor-with-fraud-too-2009-3 http://www.businessinsider.com/sec-charges-madoff-auditor-wi...

tptacek 9y ago

Again: what you can say with authority is that they decided not to pursue action at that time. You have no idea what their future plans are.

cal5k 9y ago
True. And if at some point in the future their actions become aggressive and unreasonable, I would have a far less charitable view. I can only judge them based on their actions to date, not what they might do in the future.
pdpi 9y ago
Every day that goes by is a day when they could’ve taken action but didn’t. The stuff they publish on the topic all seems reasonably well thought out, and is always consistent with a “we just want you to follow the rules in place even if you’re using novel tech to do things” mentality. Sure, they can pivot into rabid dog mode at any moment, but they’re allowing things to proceed while being aware that it’s gaining more mainstream appeal. The sort of posture you’re advocating is the same sort of scaremongering as the “this is all a Ponzi scheme that will blow up any day now” types are spewing.