3 ms·
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 be
by 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 agoHave 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 agoyeah 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> Or you know the SEC is allowed to announce /why/ they are prosecuting. They are, but they don't have to since the law is spelled out. > And why they are prosecuting a particular alleged transgressor first as opposed to some other having not done so until now. Gotta start somewhere, and the fact someone else is breaking the law isn't a defense. If it was any two people doing the same crime couldn't ever be charged right? haha. > 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. Totally, but the Howey test has been the law of the land for what 70 years? It's prettttty obvious that this is in fact a security. The SEC agrees. Coinbase does not. Ergo, it's up to the judge to decide. This is about as black and white as the rule of law thing gets.
- throwaway2037 5y agoI agree 100% with your last paragraph. And, I was surprised by the age of this judgement! Wiki says: Decided May 27, 1946 Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SEC_v._W._J._Howey_Co https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SEC_v._W._J._Howey_Co.
- harry8 5y agoStealth edit on the grandparent of this comment. Why do that? It make me go from the assumption of good faith to the other thing.
- arcticbull 5y agoDid I change something material? If so my bad, I usually only edit for clarity, and add an edit block if I add something. My bad if so!