5 ms·

You don't have to be a bank to offer an interest bearing account.

TomSwirly 5y ago
Your implied claim is that you can set up a system to offer interest bearing accounts, and not be subject to any sort of regulation. This is false. Either you are something like a bank or an insurance company that has its own regulation, or you are regulated by the SEC. You can't just magically say, "I'm a not a thing at all, you can't regulate me!" This is the "sovereign citizen" argument applied to the SEC.
- darksaints 5y ago
  What the actual fuck? Never once have I said that these wouldn't be regulated, nor has the Coinbase CEO, and I have no fucking clue how you would jump to that conclusion. Jesus Christ...what a fucking moronic straw man. There are over a dozen financial regulatory bodies that are not the SEC. FINRA is the most likely choice here, considering the fact that they already regulate securities lending.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - JohnHaugeland 5y ago
    He's right. You don't have the option to choose which laws apply to you, and your attempt to explain why is irrelevant, as the law does not support your claimed definition The SEC is getting involved because they are the correct people to handle this. This is not something an outsider should be trying to pan as someone else's wheelhouse.
    - darksaints 5y ago
      No, he's not right because his entire argument was a straw man, trying to claim that I was sovereign citizen-ing financial regulation. The Coinbase CEO is not an idiot. He has been very clear that this would be a regulated instrument. The SEC has no jurisdiction here. Either this is an interest-bearing currency lending account, for which the FDIC would be the regulatory body, or it is a securities lending account, for which FINRA would be the regulatory body. The SEC has not ever regulated securities lending or interest bearing accounts. They have also never had any regulatory authority over non-tradable financial instruments. They're literally the least likely agency to get this turf, which is why industry insiders like Matt Levine are shocked by this. It's only complete outsiders like you that think the SEC has any stake here, because you have a completely facile understand of the jurisdictions of the financial regulatory bodies in the US.
      - agency 5y ago
        Do you have a source for Matt "Everything is Securities Fraud" Levine being shocked by this? He seems like the last person I'd expect to be surprised by the SEC's broad mandate.
        ahahahahah 5y ago
        Of course he doesn't. Levine isn't shocked by this. From https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-08-04/the-sec-has-its-eye-on-crypto https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-08-04/the-se... > But a lending platform that says “hey put your Bitcoins into this pool and we will give you a 10% return on them” probably is offering a security. Also > A collateralized stablecoin is basically a money market fund, money market funds are regulated by the SEC and their shares are securities, so the SEC naturally wants to treat stablecoins as securities and regulate them. I am less convinced that this view is correct, 2 but it’s probably the SEC’s view and > The speech is not exhaustive, and I am perhaps wrong in interpreting it to mean “everything in crypto is a security until proven otherwise.” Now, maybe he misspoke and didn't mean shocked but rather meant that Levine disagreed with categorizing it as a security, but given that first quote I think even that extremely kind reading of his comment would have no standing.

Your implied claim is that you can set up a system to offer interest bearing accounts, and not be subject to any sort of regulation. This is false. Either you are something like a bank or an insurance company that has its own regulation, or you are regulated by the SEC. You can't just magically say, "I'm a not a thing at all, you can't regulate me!" This is the "sovereign citizen" argument applied to the SEC.

darksaints 5y ago
What the actual fuck? Never once have I said that these wouldn't be regulated, nor has the Coinbase CEO, and I have no fucking clue how you would jump to that conclusion. Jesus Christ...what a fucking moronic straw man. There are over a dozen financial regulatory bodies that are not the SEC. FINRA is the most likely choice here, considering the fact that they already regulate securities lending.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- JohnHaugeland 5y ago
  He's right. You don't have the option to choose which laws apply to you, and your attempt to explain why is irrelevant, as the law does not support your claimed definition The SEC is getting involved because they are the correct people to handle this. This is not something an outsider should be trying to pan as someone else's wheelhouse.
  - darksaints 5y ago
    No, he's not right because his entire argument was a straw man, trying to claim that I was sovereign citizen-ing financial regulation. The Coinbase CEO is not an idiot. He has been very clear that this would be a regulated instrument. The SEC has no jurisdiction here. Either this is an interest-bearing currency lending account, for which the FDIC would be the regulatory body, or it is a securities lending account, for which FINRA would be the regulatory body. The SEC has not ever regulated securities lending or interest bearing accounts. They have also never had any regulatory authority over non-tradable financial instruments. They're literally the least likely agency to get this turf, which is why industry insiders like Matt Levine are shocked by this. It's only complete outsiders like you that think the SEC has any stake here, because you have a completely facile understand of the jurisdictions of the financial regulatory bodies in the US.
    - agency 5y ago
      Do you have a source for Matt "Everything is Securities Fraud" Levine being shocked by this? He seems like the last person I'd expect to be surprised by the SEC's broad mandate.
      - ahahahahah 5y ago
        Of course he doesn't. Levine isn't shocked by this. From https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-08-04/the-sec-has-its-eye-on-crypto https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-08-04/the-se... > But a lending platform that says “hey put your Bitcoins into this pool and we will give you a 10% return on them” probably is offering a security. Also > A collateralized stablecoin is basically a money market fund, money market funds are regulated by the SEC and their shares are securities, so the SEC naturally wants to treat stablecoins as securities and regulate them. I am less convinced that this view is correct, 2 but it’s probably the SEC’s view and > The speech is not exhaustive, and I am perhaps wrong in interpreting it to mean “everything in crypto is a security until proven otherwise.” Now, maybe he misspoke and didn't mean shocked but rather meant that Levine disagreed with categorizing it as a security, but given that first quote I think even that extremely kind reading of his comment would have no standing.