4 ms·

It is clear from their own blog post that they have communicated with the SEC in considerable detail, and the SEC has told them in no uncertain terms not to pro

It is clear from their own blog post that they have communicated with the SEC in considerable detail, and the SEC has told them in no uncertain terms not to proceed. It sounds to me like the SEC welcomed the discussion, it’s just that Coinbase doesn’t like the answer they got.

seibelj 5y ago
The blog post says they did not give a rationale. That is the entire essence of the post. Did you read the post?
- peterbonney 5y ago
  They repeatedly refer to lengthy sets of questions they received from the SEC, both in person and in writing. If you don’t think that is the SEC communicating their “rationale” for a decision and offering insight into what acceptable alternatives might look like then you obviously haven’t dealt with the SEC, nor do you understand what it is that they do. (I actually do have some relevant experience here - I was a partner at an alternative investment manager for 12 years.)
  - seibelj 5y ago
    > Despite Coinbase keeping Lend off the market and providing detailed information, the SEC still won’t explain why they see a problem. Rather they have now told us that if we launch Lend they intend to sue. Yet again, we asked if the SEC would share their reasoning with us, and yet again they refused. Plain as day! And as to experience, I was CTO of the first company to settle with the SEC for an ICO: https://www.sec.gov/litigation/admin/2018/33-10575.pdf https://www.sec.gov/litigation/admin/2018/33-10575.pdf Many years of experience in crypto at the highest levels, dealt with millions of dollars in attorney fees, etc. etc.
    - peterbonney 5y ago
      > …all of the SEC’s questions in writing and then again in person… They asked for documents and written responses… Plain as day! And since you have so much experience dealing with the SEC, you surely understand that the specific questions they ask will typically reveal precisely their rationale for taking the (extraordinary) step of an enforcement action, just as a prosecutor’s investigatory questions reveals their legal theory of a crime. The SEC doesn’t go around issuing Wells notices every day, and they typically don’t issue them without giving recipients the opportunity to choose a different path. We’re only hearing one side of this story, and even that one side contains so many hints of willful obtuseness that you have to be a blind partisan to take Coinbase’s “shock” at face value.
      - seibelj 5y ago
        The SEC can and does provide candid advice. I know entrepreneurs who have had lengthy calls with both state and federal SEC reps who will give straight talk. This is not that. This is preparation to make a court case to use as precedent to attack the industry. I feel the SEC is being a bad actor - stifling innovation rather than encouraging it. Over the last 10 years the HN chattering class has dismissed crypto endlessly. I laugh all the way to the bank and its rise has been inevitable to anyone who understands software and finance. I look forward to the court case.
        deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
        jjulius 5y ago
        >I laugh all the way to the bank... Cool.
        yunohn 5y ago
        > I laugh all the way to the bank… You ran an ICO that settled with the SEC. I’m not clear on what value you offered to the public, or how you justify “making bank”?
        chitowneats 5y ago
    - hoogabooga5 5y ago
      Why do people constantly cite legal fees to make a point or pour a foundation for another argument? That’s not the first time I’ve read a statement like that and it’s just a baffling thing to say. I’ve never heard “I’ve paid a lot of doctors so you should hear me out on ...”, oh, wait, yes I have. “My attorney will be in touch,” too, like, you want to generate billable time for yourself to effectuate a threat to threaten me? Never understood it. Cool?

seibelj 5y ago

The blog post says they did not give a rationale. That is the entire essence of the post. Did you read the post?

peterbonney 5y ago
They repeatedly refer to lengthy sets of questions they received from the SEC, both in person and in writing. If you don’t think that is the SEC communicating their “rationale” for a decision and offering insight into what acceptable alternatives might look like then you obviously haven’t dealt with the SEC, nor do you understand what it is that they do. (I actually do have some relevant experience here - I was a partner at an alternative investment manager for 12 years.)
- seibelj 5y ago
  > Despite Coinbase keeping Lend off the market and providing detailed information, the SEC still won’t explain why they see a problem. Rather they have now told us that if we launch Lend they intend to sue. Yet again, we asked if the SEC would share their reasoning with us, and yet again they refused. Plain as day! And as to experience, I was CTO of the first company to settle with the SEC for an ICO: https://www.sec.gov/litigation/admin/2018/33-10575.pdf https://www.sec.gov/litigation/admin/2018/33-10575.pdf Many years of experience in crypto at the highest levels, dealt with millions of dollars in attorney fees, etc. etc.
  - peterbonney 5y ago
    > …all of the SEC’s questions in writing and then again in person… They asked for documents and written responses… Plain as day! And since you have so much experience dealing with the SEC, you surely understand that the specific questions they ask will typically reveal precisely their rationale for taking the (extraordinary) step of an enforcement action, just as a prosecutor’s investigatory questions reveals their legal theory of a crime. The SEC doesn’t go around issuing Wells notices every day, and they typically don’t issue them without giving recipients the opportunity to choose a different path. We’re only hearing one side of this story, and even that one side contains so many hints of willful obtuseness that you have to be a blind partisan to take Coinbase’s “shock” at face value.
    - seibelj 5y ago
      The SEC can and does provide candid advice. I know entrepreneurs who have had lengthy calls with both state and federal SEC reps who will give straight talk. This is not that. This is preparation to make a court case to use as precedent to attack the industry. I feel the SEC is being a bad actor - stifling innovation rather than encouraging it. Over the last 10 years the HN chattering class has dismissed crypto endlessly. I laugh all the way to the bank and its rise has been inevitable to anyone who understands software and finance. I look forward to the court case.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      - jjulius 5y ago
        >I laugh all the way to the bank... Cool.
      - yunohn 5y ago
        > I laugh all the way to the bank… You ran an ICO that settled with the SEC. I’m not clear on what value you offered to the public, or how you justify “making bank”?
        chitowneats 5y ago
  - hoogabooga5 5y ago
    Why do people constantly cite legal fees to make a point or pour a foundation for another argument? That’s not the first time I’ve read a statement like that and it’s just a baffling thing to say. I’ve never heard “I’ve paid a lot of doctors so you should hear me out on ...”, oh, wait, yes I have. “My attorney will be in touch,” too, like, you want to generate billable time for yourself to effectuate a threat to threaten me? Never understood it. Cool?