3 ms·

>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

• arcticbull 5y ago
  We may be talking past eachother so let's re-state our points of alignment. 1. Coinbase Lend is clearly a security. 2. ...because it fails the Howey test. 3. ...for reasons that are clear and self-evident. 4. ...and Coinbase, as a registered broker-dealer would know or be expected to know that in advance. [note: for 1-4 see Anderson Kill] 5. There's a few people offering similar products. 6. They're all doing crime. Here's where we seem to disagree. 1. Coinbase should be told by the SEC exactly why it fails the Howey test. No. It clearly fails, and the SEC isn't required to provide their opinion of why outside the court of law. It is up to the SEC and Coinbase to present their arguments to a judge. The resolution will form precedent. 2. Coinbase is being treated differently in some way, and that's bad. The first person charged for anything is obviously being treated differently, until the others are charged. That's not bad, that's bad luck. See the speeding cars anaology. 3. The first person to commit a crime has some obligation to be charged first. No, they don't. Usually police and regulators go after who they have the strongest case against in no particular order. The resolution gives them a weapon they can use against those they have a weaker case against. 4. All criminals committing the same crime should be charged together or at the same time. No, there's no expectation of that, or precedent of that. In fact its usually easier when the cases are separate. 5. This is taking a long time because some other offerings have been on the market for 6 months. The SEC just went after Bitconnect. That was in 2016. The wheels of justice turn slow. You'll have a point if after Coinbase is convicted the SEC leaves everyone else alone. Until then its safe to assume they're being made an example of, and with that example the SEC is going to come by and knock some heads together.
  • SilasX 5y ago
    >They're all doing crime. No, not a point of agreement -- if the SEC is silently accepting a new exception to Howey based on market realities, then what Coinbase is doing isn't a crime. We don't know until they go on record saying what their opinion is. That happens all the time in regulation: they realize, long after the fact that something is technically violating the rules but just grandfather it in since it's become so ubiquitous and issue new clarification. But it helps to know what the case actually is! That's the problem with stonewalling: You don't know what the other side actually objects to! You seem to be in some kind of mentality where equality before the law doesn't matter, and if some people are persistently let of off the hook "that's just life, man". No ... that's not how rule of law or ex-3rd world regulation works. Haphazard enforcement isn't just a "fact of life", it actively disrupts the functioning of markets, and you don't look clever with the sage "it is what it is" attitude. >Coinbase is being treated differently in some way, and that's bad. The first person charged for anything is obviously being treated differently, until the others are charged. That's not bad, that's bad luck. Wait, really? You're saying that turning a blind eye to persistent violation is "just" "bad luck"? Okay I just wish you had initially been clearer about your premise of rejecting equality under the law. Then again, that would have made your position more obviously wrong, and your arguments seem less clever, so I can see the tendency to avoid that! It's probably similar to the reason why you make huge edits to your post long after the fact without noting them.
    • arcticbull 5y ago
      > [edit] No, not a point of agreement -- if the SEC is silently accepting a new exception to Howey based on market realities, then what Coinbase is doing isn't a crime. That's not what they're doing, and yes it is a crime lol. It would work just as well with murder, but you're choosing to look the other way because it's white collar. > That's the problem with stonewalling: You don't know what the other side actually objects to! No, that's why I re-stated my assumptions, including any potentially hidden ones, so that you could follow up and respond individually and explain where the gap is. This is a useful tool to resolve conflicts. > Wait, really? You're saying that turning a blind eye to persistent violation is "just" "bad luck"? No, I'm saying the wheels of justice turn slow and this shit takes time [edit] and regulators literally have to start somewhere because they have limited resources. So long as it happens within the statute of limitations its explicitly in play. > Okay I just wish you had initially been clearer about your premise of rejecting equality under the law. You're obviously either misreading my point or not interested in understanding. You pick one. Get a judgement. Apply that judgement. This is equal treatment. > It's probably similar to the reason why you make huge edits to your post long after the fact without noting them. No, I limit my edits to the first two to three minutes after I write a comment, to before anyone can reply. If someone can reply I annotate my edits. This is my workflow. [edit] My point is it's way too soon to know if you're right or I'm right, we must wait and see a year from now, or two years from now. 180 days is nothing.