5 ms·

Something tells me courts wont be too sympathetic to the "but other people are criming as well" argument.

by ac29 5y ago

bpodgursky 5y ago
That's not true at all? There is a ton of precedent for courts striking down selectively-enforced laws. Equality before the law is extremely important to how courts rule in the US.
- pavlov 5y ago
  The SEC intentionally does “regulation by selective enforcement”, as shown by their actions following the 2017 ICO bubble: https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2019/11/21/regulation-by-selective-enforcement-the-sec-and-initial-coin-offerings/ https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2019/11/21/regulation-by-sel... It shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone in this space.
  - twirlock 5y ago
    No one said anything about what's a "surprise" in a ~space~.
runawaybottle 5y ago
It’s a good way to shut down your competitors and get certain legislation in place where only your mega corp can meet the standards. They bought a lot of Bitcoin recently, which could be decent enough collateral to offer a SEC-sanctified lending product. The other low-end Bitcoin companies may not be able to play at a poker table with that high of a buy in. The only other companies that will be able to offer something like that will be mega corps like the big banks, PayPal, etc. If they need to also buy large amounts of Bitcoin as collateral, that’s a win-win for their entire industry (price goes way up). The name of the game is not user adoption. The name of the game is pump the price, because that’s marketing on its own.
harry8 5y ago
How about the SEC has repeatedly refused to prosecute for X in the past showing they, like us and multiple other parties doing business in this space, do not believe X is a crime. Given they've shown they don't think it's a crime and we and we agree and also don't think X is as crime, we have no idea why they're prosecuting us? I dunno, seems like an obvious interpretation but I could be totally missing it. I could care f.all about the SEC and blockchain coin stuff.
- arcticbull 5y ago
  Have they refused to prosecute X or have they not gotten around to prosecuting X? Gotta start somewhere and the statute of limitations is ticking so... The wheels of justice turn slow but they generally don't stop when they get to ya just because there's a big line of folks behind ya. Unless either the statute has expired or the SEC issues a written determination that you're in the clear you're not in the clear. And neither is anyone else doing the same thing.
  - harry8 5y ago
    yeah sure. Or you know the SEC is allowed to announce /why/ they are prosecuting. And why they are prosecuting a particular alleged transgressor first as opposed to some other having not done so until now. Seems like a reasonable thing to do to me? Generally ".. a written determination you're in the clear" is the opposite to how law is kind of meant to work. I haven't got a written determination that I'm not infringing basically any law that I'm aware of and I do _NOT_ expect to be prosecuted for anything either. I genuinely don't understand all the laws I'm subject to in making money to put food on the table, nobody does. I do know that I'm doing things other people do and nobody is getting prosecuted for it. I have other heuristics that I use for this. And so do you, I'm guessing. The great thing is if I get prosecuted I can hire a lawyer and they don't know for sure either and will hedge every statement they make as a part of legal advice about everything while disagreeing with every other lawyer. It's an issue. I don't have a solution for it.
    - arcticbull 5y ago

Something tells me courts wont be too sympathetic to the "but other people are criming as well" argument.

by ac29 5y ago

Something tells me courts wont be too sympathetic to the "but other people are criming as well" argument.

That's not true at all? There is a ton of precedent for courts striking down selectively-enforced laws. Equality before the law is extremely important to how courts rule in the US.

pavlov 5y ago
The SEC intentionally does “regulation by selective enforcement”, as shown by their actions following the 2017 ICO bubble: https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2019/11/21/regulation-by-selective-enforcement-the-sec-and-initial-coin-offerings/ https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2019/11/21/regulation-by-sel... It shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone in this space.
- twirlock 5y ago
  No one said anything about what's a "surprise" in a ~space~.

runawaybottle 5y ago

It’s a good way to shut down your competitors and get certain legislation in place where only your mega corp can meet the standards. They bought a lot of Bitcoin recently, which could be decent enough collateral to offer a SEC-sanctified lending product. The other low-end Bitcoin companies may not be able to play at a poker table with that high of a buy in. The only other companies that will be able to offer something like that will be mega corps like the big banks, PayPal, etc. If they need to also buy large amounts of Bitcoin as collateral, that’s a win-win for their entire industry (price goes way up). The name of the game is not user adoption. The name of the game is pump the price, because that’s marketing on its own.

harry8 5y ago

How about the SEC has repeatedly refused to prosecute for X in the past showing they, like us and multiple other parties doing business in this space, do not believe X is a crime. Given they've shown they don't think it's a crime and we and we agree and also don't think X is as crime, we have no idea why they're prosecuting us? I dunno, seems like an obvious interpretation but I could be totally missing it. I could care f.all about the SEC and blockchain coin stuff.

arcticbull 5y ago
Have they refused to prosecute X or have they not gotten around to prosecuting X? Gotta start somewhere and the statute of limitations is ticking so... The wheels of justice turn slow but they generally don't stop when they get to ya just because there's a big line of folks behind ya. Unless either the statute has expired or the SEC issues a written determination that you're in the clear you're not in the clear. And neither is anyone else doing the same thing.
- harry8 5y ago
  yeah sure. Or you know the SEC is allowed to announce /why/ they are prosecuting. And why they are prosecuting a particular alleged transgressor first as opposed to some other having not done so until now. Seems like a reasonable thing to do to me? Generally ".. a written determination you're in the clear" is the opposite to how law is kind of meant to work. I haven't got a written determination that I'm not infringing basically any law that I'm aware of and I do _NOT_ expect to be prosecuted for anything either. I genuinely don't understand all the laws I'm subject to in making money to put food on the table, nobody does. I do know that I'm doing things other people do and nobody is getting prosecuted for it. I have other heuristics that I use for this. And so do you, I'm guessing. The great thing is if I get prosecuted I can hire a lawyer and they don't know for sure either and will hedge every statement they make as a part of legal advice about everything while disagreeing with every other lawyer. It's an issue. I don't have a solution for it.
  - arcticbull 5y ago