3 ms·
Yes, IMO OP should have disclosed it to the SEC right after Thomas confirmed that closing the account was intentional.
by okl 6y ago
Yes, IMO OP should have disclosed it to the SEC right after Thomas confirmed that closing the account was intentional.
- ic4l 6y agoThey said it was intentional but did not state why, and said that they could not tell me why. From what I understand they can close your accounts for any reason.
- hedora 6y agoThey probably claim that, but it’s not true. For one thing, they have to worry about discriminating against protected classes of people. Of course, in the US, it’s essentially impossible to get your case to be tried in a fair court.
- ceejayoz 6y agoWhy the SEC? The CFPB or the FDIC are far more likely to have jurisdiction here.
- vmception 6y agoThey’re probably a crypto person that views the SEC as a real police and arbiter of reality
- okl 6y agoI'm not a "crypto person". What makes you think that?
- okl 6y agoI proposed the SEC because they are well-known for vigorously protecting their witnesses. AFAIK, the CFPB is a joke. FDIC might be a good pointer though. Not so sure about jurisdiction, I'm not from the US.
- kuyan 6y agoFWIW, I've heard the opposite about the CFPB, but I've never interacted with either myself. This kind of issue seems out of the CFPB's scope, though.