4 ms·

You really don't see anything wrong with, "It's illegal for you to do this but not your identical competitors with an identical product"?

by SilasX 5y ago

arcticbull 5y ago
The SEC didn't say that everyone else could do it. They said the action itself is illegal and they're beginning their enforcement actions at Coinbase. Nobody is allowed to do it, and a judgement in their favor here will allow them to expeditiously stop everyone else with the explicit precedent they form. That's almost certainly why they're pushing ahead. It feels like your reaction is akin to a group of 5 cars speeding back to back, and the cop picks off the first guy to get a speeding ticket. They're all speeding. It's illegal for everyone. Enforcement resources are limited and they choose one to make an example of. If the others keep speeding they'll get caught afterwards too. Is it unfair the cop grabs the first guy? In a sense. But also so long as it slows everyone down; mission accomplished.
- SilasX 5y ago
  No, it feels like my reaction is akin to basic government accountability and asking why enforcement is so inconsistent. Coinbase isn't complaining that the law exists -- as in the Twitter thread, they're happy to comply with the law, so long as they know what it is! Your analogy isn't very good. Offering a long-term financial product isn't like a one-off instance of speeding where it only last a few minutes. It's more like group A getting ticketed every day for speeding while going with the flow of traffic, and group B never gets ticketed for doing the exact same thing, and, oh, group B makes more donations to the police. Your reaction is akin to someone who sees that going on, and says it's okay because police don't catch every speeder. "As long there aren't accidents: mission accomplished." Believe me, I get the concept of not catching everyone. Letting a financial product persist for one company but not another isn't that! And: >The SEC didn't say that everyone else could do it. Yeah ... they did. By not prosecuting the others who have already started doing it, and been doing longer, or clarifying what's different, or at least saying "oh don't worry, they're going down too". If I'm wrong here, it's for reasons other than not understanding the concept of not catching every violation.
  - arcticbull 5y ago
    > No, it feels like my reaction is akin to basic government accountability and asking why enforcement is so inconsistent. Coinbase isn't complaining that the law exists -- as in the Twitter thread, they're happy to comply with the law, so long as they know what it is! I'm sorry - they know what it is. Any lawyer will tell you exactly what it is. It's the Howey test, it's been the law of the land for 70 years and the SEC issued guidance on how it applies to digital assets. [1] Literally the first page of the Securities Act of 1933 explains that lending products are securities. Brian is feigning ignorance on twitter while acting indignant that someone told him no. His lawyers told him no. The SEC told him no. He said I'm gonna do it anyways. They said see you in court. He follows up with a late-night twitter rant, roughly "how could the SEC do this? how could a lending product possibly be a security?!" [edit] The man literally owns an SEC registered broker-dealer lol. [edit] Even Preston Byrne from Anderson Kill tweeted today that it was obviously a security. That's the most libertarian cypto-sympathizer attorney on the face of the earth. > Your reaction is akin to someone who sees that going on, and says it's okay because police don't catch every speeder. "As long there aren't accidents: mission accomplished." Regulators don't act day 1, legal proceedings take time. You're saying "because they took the usual amount of time everyone should be allowed to do whatever they want - or they should sue them all, all at the same time." Nope. That's not how this game works. They can't stop everyone at the same time, and they can't jump them on day 1. They're not omnipotent, and they certainly don't have unlimited resources. What Brian wants isn't to work with regulators, its for regulators to let him do whatever he wants on his terms and on his schedule. That's not the same thing. [1] https://www.sec.gov/files/dlt-framework.pdf https://www.sec.gov/files/dlt-framework.pdf
    - SilasX 5y ago
      >It's the Howey test, it's been the law of the land for 70 years and the SEC issued guidance on how it applies to digital assets. Did you miss where I said the issue is that they're being treated differently? I spent at least two paragraphs on the concept. Even if it's "obviously" a security by the Howey test, that doesn't explain why others get a free pass, or why they can't confirm that's their reasoning, or why others aren't being treated the same, or a why they can't confirm they intend to treat others the same. Repeating the same argument doesn't advance the conversation! See also this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28459949 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28459949 >Regulators don't act day 1, legal proceedings take time. Again, I understand this concept, it's just a red herring. they're on day 180 with Gemini and day -30 with Coinbase. Saying it takes time is just an easy soundbite for you to parrot, not an actual explanation for the discrepancy, just like "we can't catch all speeders" isn't an explanation for the patterns in which you let speeders go. >[edit] Even Preston Byrne from Anderson Kill tweeted today that it was obviously a security lol. That's the most libertarian cypto-sympathizer attorney on the face of the earth. Which of my arguments is that relevant to?
- kobasa 5y ago
  "They said the action itself is illegal and they're beginning their enforcement actions at Coinbase" - they said no such thing, stop guessing out of your backside to try to strengthen phantom arguments.
  - arcticbull 5y ago
    Uh... "I'm going to sue you" -> "they are saying the action is illegal" Suing Coinbase first -> "beginning their enforcement actions at Coinbase" Which exactly fantom argument is 'the first page of the Securities Act of 1933'? Do I know for a fact they're going to go after everyone else? No, I don't work there, time will tell.

You really don't see anything wrong with, "It's illegal for you to do this but not your identical competitors with an identical product"?

by SilasX 5y ago

You really don't see anything wrong with, "It's illegal for you to do this but not your identical competitors with an identical product"?

arcticbull 5y ago

The SEC didn't say that everyone else could do it. They said the action itself is illegal and they're beginning their enforcement actions at Coinbase. Nobody is allowed to do it, and a judgement in their favor here will allow them to expeditiously stop everyone else with the explicit precedent they form. That's almost certainly why they're pushing ahead. It feels like your reaction is akin to a group of 5 cars speeding back to back, and the cop picks off the first guy to get a speeding ticket. They're all speeding. It's illegal for everyone. Enforcement resources are limited and they choose one to make an example of. If the others keep speeding they'll get caught afterwards too. Is it unfair the cop grabs the first guy? In a sense. But also so long as it slows everyone down; mission accomplished.

SilasX 5y ago
No, it feels like my reaction is akin to basic government accountability and asking why enforcement is so inconsistent. Coinbase isn't complaining that the law exists -- as in the Twitter thread, they're happy to comply with the law, so long as they know what it is! Your analogy isn't very good. Offering a long-term financial product isn't like a one-off instance of speeding where it only last a few minutes. It's more like group A getting ticketed every day for speeding while going with the flow of traffic, and group B never gets ticketed for doing the exact same thing, and, oh, group B makes more donations to the police. Your reaction is akin to someone who sees that going on, and says it's okay because police don't catch every speeder. "As long there aren't accidents: mission accomplished." Believe me, I get the concept of not catching everyone. Letting a financial product persist for one company but not another isn't that! And: >The SEC didn't say that everyone else could do it. Yeah ... they did. By not prosecuting the others who have already started doing it, and been doing longer, or clarifying what's different, or at least saying "oh don't worry, they're going down too". If I'm wrong here, it's for reasons other than not understanding the concept of not catching every violation.
- arcticbull 5y ago
  > No, it feels like my reaction is akin to basic government accountability and asking why enforcement is so inconsistent. Coinbase isn't complaining that the law exists -- as in the Twitter thread, they're happy to comply with the law, so long as they know what it is! I'm sorry - they know what it is. Any lawyer will tell you exactly what it is. It's the Howey test, it's been the law of the land for 70 years and the SEC issued guidance on how it applies to digital assets. [1] Literally the first page of the Securities Act of 1933 explains that lending products are securities. Brian is feigning ignorance on twitter while acting indignant that someone told him no. His lawyers told him no. The SEC told him no. He said I'm gonna do it anyways. They said see you in court. He follows up with a late-night twitter rant, roughly "how could the SEC do this? how could a lending product possibly be a security?!" [edit] The man literally owns an SEC registered broker-dealer lol. [edit] Even Preston Byrne from Anderson Kill tweeted today that it was obviously a security. That's the most libertarian cypto-sympathizer attorney on the face of the earth. > Your reaction is akin to someone who sees that going on, and says it's okay because police don't catch every speeder. "As long there aren't accidents: mission accomplished." Regulators don't act day 1, legal proceedings take time. You're saying "because they took the usual amount of time everyone should be allowed to do whatever they want - or they should sue them all, all at the same time." Nope. That's not how this game works. They can't stop everyone at the same time, and they can't jump them on day 1. They're not omnipotent, and they certainly don't have unlimited resources. What Brian wants isn't to work with regulators, its for regulators to let him do whatever he wants on his terms and on his schedule. That's not the same thing. [1] https://www.sec.gov/files/dlt-framework.pdf https://www.sec.gov/files/dlt-framework.pdf
  - SilasX 5y ago
    >It's the Howey test, it's been the law of the land for 70 years and the SEC issued guidance on how it applies to digital assets. Did you miss where I said the issue is that they're being treated differently? I spent at least two paragraphs on the concept. Even if it's "obviously" a security by the Howey test, that doesn't explain why others get a free pass, or why they can't confirm that's their reasoning, or why others aren't being treated the same, or a why they can't confirm they intend to treat others the same. Repeating the same argument doesn't advance the conversation! See also this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28459949 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28459949 >Regulators don't act day 1, legal proceedings take time. Again, I understand this concept, it's just a red herring. they're on day 180 with Gemini and day -30 with Coinbase. Saying it takes time is just an easy soundbite for you to parrot, not an actual explanation for the discrepancy, just like "we can't catch all speeders" isn't an explanation for the patterns in which you let speeders go. >[edit] Even Preston Byrne from Anderson Kill tweeted today that it was obviously a security lol. That's the most libertarian cypto-sympathizer attorney on the face of the earth. Which of my arguments is that relevant to?
kobasa 5y ago
"They said the action itself is illegal and they're beginning their enforcement actions at Coinbase" - they said no such thing, stop guessing out of your backside to try to strengthen phantom arguments.
- arcticbull 5y ago
  Uh... "I'm going to sue you" -> "they are saying the action is illegal" Suing Coinbase first -> "beginning their enforcement actions at Coinbase" Which exactly fantom argument is 'the first page of the Securities Act of 1933'? Do I know for a fact they're going to go after everyone else? No, I don't work there, time will tell.