5 ms·

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

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.
JohnHaugeland 5y ago
> No, he's not right because his entire argument was a straw man Respectfully, there is no straw man there. [A straw man is when someone attempts to replace your argument with something else that's easier to argue with](https://laurencetennant.com/bonds/bdksucks.html https://laurencetennant.com/bonds/bdksucks.html). He claimed that you are making the claim that someone can merely opt out of regulation by deciding that it does not apply to them. That is what it would mean to "soverign citizen" things - those folks are people who appear to genuinely believe that if they state, in their opinion clearly, why the law doesn't apply to them, that it really doesn't. They frequently get dragged to jail in chains, ranting about how the tassles on a flag mean it's an admiralty flag, and as a result, some string of hedge logic means it doesn't apply on a technicality. I agree with his impression of you. You appear to be making random, incorrect, unjustified claims, and then drawing from those claims the impression that the law doesn't apply in context, and the actual people who run this part of the legal system are too dumb to understand what you understand, and aren't the right people to handle it. Here are some literal quotes of you, which I believe support this perspective on what you're saying. . > A security is by definition a tradable instrument. Your bank account is not tradable Three things: 1. That is not the correct definition of a security, no. It both gets things wrong, cites irrelevant things as if they were key, makes correct factual claims in a way that makes clear they're not well understood, and omits defining details. This like saying "a car is a wooden box with a radio and a minimum of two wheels, at least one of which a steering wheel." 2. Yes, your bank account very much is tradeable. I would say "please go learn about securitization," but since you're trying to define what a security is, it seems likely you'll say "I already know about it," unaware that securitization is the process by which something that didn't used to be a security is turned into one, and that the United States has had two different financial crises in the last 20 years caused directly by bank accounts being tradeable. 3. The sub-average NPR listener can explain this. Maybe befriend one and ask. . > trying to claim that I was sovereign citizen-ing financial regulation. You're the guy saying "The SEC is wrong and they don't even do this and here's why and I have no reference and when you say I'm wrong I'm going to ignore you and make fun of you and not address your points." I guess I don't think he's incorrect about you, frankly. Vaccine deniers also get angry when they're compared to Flat Earthers, because they're so busy telling themselves that they're right that they never bother to learn why people are taking the social cues that they're taking. I suppose it's possible that you know more about financial regulation than the SEC, even though your claims stand in direct contrast to recent high profile history Would you like to provide some evidence, or at least stop throwing around the misapplied fallacies? . > The Coinbase CEO is not an idiot. So, there are three obvious possible ways to take this. 1. You think the SEC are idiots 2. You think that when the head of a shady company criticizes the financial regulator who's supposed to prevent them from doing something illegal, it's because he's smart, and not because he's a snake oil salesman 3. You didn't know Coinbase has a history of breaking financial regulations Is it one of those, or a different thing? > He has been very clear When you said "the Coinbase CEO has been very clear," what I actually heard was you yelling "bitconnect" with a Spanish accent. Try to keep up. The embattled CEO of a shady company with a history of legal problems, who's just been notified by a regulator that /yet/ /again/ they're breaking the law? Most of us don't care how clear they've been. If you go back, you can find people talking about how the statistics on Theranos are completely impossible for the last ten years. How the size of sample they're talking about drawing is so small that frequently there won't actually be any blood cells in it to get data from. How it's a criminally obvious fraud from freshman year statistics. And you'll find investors proving H L Mencken right, the entire way. "Elizabeth has been very clear." That's nice. . > that this would be a regulated instrument. That isn't how those words work. You are very easily fooled. (continued in self-reply because it's too long for one comment. i wish these pages wouldn't do this.)

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.

JohnHaugeland 5y ago

> No, he's not right because his entire argument was a straw man Respectfully, there is no straw man there. [A straw man is when someone attempts to replace your argument with something else that's easier to argue with](https://laurencetennant.com/bonds/bdksucks.html https://laurencetennant.com/bonds/bdksucks.html). He claimed that you are making the claim that someone can merely opt out of regulation by deciding that it does not apply to them. That is what it would mean to "soverign citizen" things - those folks are people who appear to genuinely believe that if they state, in their opinion clearly, why the law doesn't apply to them, that it really doesn't. They frequently get dragged to jail in chains, ranting about how the tassles on a flag mean it's an admiralty flag, and as a result, some string of hedge logic means it doesn't apply on a technicality. I agree with his impression of you. You appear to be making random, incorrect, unjustified claims, and then drawing from those claims the impression that the law doesn't apply in context, and the actual people who run this part of the legal system are too dumb to understand what you understand, and aren't the right people to handle it. Here are some literal quotes of you, which I believe support this perspective on what you're saying. . > A security is by definition a tradable instrument. Your bank account is not tradable Three things: 1. That is not the correct definition of a security, no. It both gets things wrong, cites irrelevant things as if they were key, makes correct factual claims in a way that makes clear they're not well understood, and omits defining details. This like saying "a car is a wooden box with a radio and a minimum of two wheels, at least one of which a steering wheel." 2. Yes, your bank account very much is tradeable. I would say "please go learn about securitization," but since you're trying to define what a security is, it seems likely you'll say "I already know about it," unaware that securitization is the process by which something that didn't used to be a security is turned into one, and that the United States has had two different financial crises in the last 20 years caused directly by bank accounts being tradeable. 3. The sub-average NPR listener can explain this. Maybe befriend one and ask. . > trying to claim that I was sovereign citizen-ing financial regulation. You're the guy saying "The SEC is wrong and they don't even do this and here's why and I have no reference and when you say I'm wrong I'm going to ignore you and make fun of you and not address your points." I guess I don't think he's incorrect about you, frankly. Vaccine deniers also get angry when they're compared to Flat Earthers, because they're so busy telling themselves that they're right that they never bother to learn why people are taking the social cues that they're taking. I suppose it's possible that you know more about financial regulation than the SEC, even though your claims stand in direct contrast to recent high profile history Would you like to provide some evidence, or at least stop throwing around the misapplied fallacies? . > The Coinbase CEO is not an idiot. So, there are three obvious possible ways to take this. 1. You think the SEC are idiots 2. You think that when the head of a shady company criticizes the financial regulator who's supposed to prevent them from doing something illegal, it's because he's smart, and not because he's a snake oil salesman 3. You didn't know Coinbase has a history of breaking financial regulations Is it one of those, or a different thing? > He has been very clear When you said "the Coinbase CEO has been very clear," what I actually heard was you yelling "bitconnect" with a Spanish accent. Try to keep up. The embattled CEO of a shady company with a history of legal problems, who's just been notified by a regulator that /yet/ /again/ they're breaking the law? Most of us don't care how clear they've been. If you go back, you can find people talking about how the statistics on Theranos are completely impossible for the last ten years. How the size of sample they're talking about drawing is so small that frequently there won't actually be any blood cells in it to get data from. How it's a criminally obvious fraud from freshman year statistics. And you'll find investors proving H L Mencken right, the entire way. "Elizabeth has been very clear." That's nice. . > that this would be a regulated instrument. That isn't how those words work. You are very easily fooled. (continued in self-reply because it's too long for one comment. i wish these pages wouldn't do this.)