6 ms·

>It doesnt matter who is/isnt regulating you, once you are claiming to be a regulated instrument publicly to people in the US then the SEC have all the jursidic

by FDSGSG 5y ago

>It doesnt matter who is/isnt regulating you, once you are claiming to be a regulated instrument publicly to people in the US then the SEC have all the jursidiction they need. The SEC does not have unlimited jurisdiction over things which are publicly claiming to be regulated instruments to people in the US. The SEC regulates securities. According to the "Howey test" provided to us by the US supreme court it appears that Tether is not a security, therefore it does not fall under the jurisdiction of the SEC.

floatingatoll 5y ago
Please indicate your interpretation of the Howey test so that we’re able to consider and respond to your assertion; without knowing why you feel it doesn’t pass them, it’s not really possible for us to consider your comment.
- FDSGSG 5y ago
  The SEC has provided us with a handy framework to help analyze whether or not a digital asset is likely to meet the Howey Test, you can try it out at https://www.sec.gov/files/dlt-framework.pdf https://www.sec.gov/files/dlt-framework.pdf >C. Reasonable Expectation of Profits Derived from Efforts of Others There is no expectation of profits from Tether tokens. In fact, you are guaranteed to lose money to inflation even if everything works out perfectly.
  - floatingatoll 5y ago
    There are thousands of search results for “Why should I invest in Tether?”, indicating that general public investors may well expect a profit from their investment in it. After all, if there was no general expectation of profit, how else would Get Rich Quick scam pages sway the general public so easily to invest in it, and why else would these pages exist at all? An investment with no profit potential does not attract flies, and investment is not explicitly restricted to businesses that have fiduciary need to use Tether on behalf of non-investors. It’s certainly enough for the SEC to bring it to trial. I would encourage you to reconsider your assumption that someone commenting about the Howey test needs you to explain what it is to them. It’s very thoughtful of you to offer that PDF, but offer it with less “you obviously don’t know what you’re talking about” condescension next time, please. (I am not your lawyer, this is not legal advice, etc.)
    - FDSGSG 5y ago
      >There are thousands of search results for “Why should I invest in Tether?” But according to google trends nobody ever googles this, and most results appear to be automatically generated SEO spam or not discussing tether as an investment. >indicating that general public investors may well expect a profit from their investment in it. Whether or not such an expectation is reasonable is highly relevant. There cannot possibly be any reasonable expectation of profit as USDT will never be redeemed at above 1 USD, you can only lose money. You seem to be suggesting that unrelated third parties could turn USDT into a security by lying that it's a great investment. I do not think that's true, I think that's simply fraud perpetrated by the third parties. Some Indian SEO spammer can't possibly be the one to decide if USDT is a security or not. > Get Rich Quick scam pages sway the general public so easily to invest in it, and why else would these pages exist at all? This is not actually happening. You can find automatically generated SEO spam pages saying essentially anything, but according to Googles own stats this just isn't a real thing. > An investment with no profit potential does not attract flies, and investment is not explicitly restricted to businesses that have fiduciary need to use Tether on behalf of non-investors. You have made zero effort to show that there are actually reasonable people investing in tether with the expectation of earning a profit. So far there's no indication that they exist, it seems extremely unlikely that such a person could exist (they wouldn't be reasonable). > It’s certainly enough for the SEC to bring it to trial. The SEC can sue you for any bullshit reason, does not mean that their suit won't be immediately thrown out. >It’s very thoughtful of you to offer that PDF, but offer it with less “you obviously don’t know what you’re talking about” condescension next time, please. I had no intention of being condescending by linking that PDF. I had forgotten that it exists, and was happy to find it again as it provides what seems to be the clearest public framework for assessing these things. I'll admit that I'm a little frustrated to see so many commentators here seemingly using their dislike of Tether to justify the kind of weird mental gymnastics required to argue that the SEC should go after Tether. The SEC is simply not the correct regulator for this, there's no indication that they might be. I'd get it if there was case law to support some of these crazy interpretations of "expectation of profits", but there isn't.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
blitzar 5y ago
In addition to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, which created it, the SEC enforces the Securities Act of 1933, the Trust Indenture Act of 1939, the Investment Company Act of 1940, the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, the Sarbanes–Oxley Act of 2002, and other statutes. Despite what a crypto telegram group may suggest, the SEC does more than just run the so called 'Howey Test'. Honestly I dont know what tether fan boys are so scared of, unless they know it is a scam - a regulator and/or court approval is what they should want, it is what everyone should want. If you believe in crypto you have to campaign for it to be properly classified, that will be they turning point. As for the 'expectations of profits' zero coupon bonds look identical, collateralised debt obligations on zero yeilding instruments looks identical, USD deposits look identical and JC penny gift cards look identical to tether. Additionally tether can be bought and sold for profit, I personally have done it 1,000s of times.
- FDSGSG 5y ago
  >In addition to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, which created it, the SEC enforces the Securities Act of 1933, the Trust Indenture Act of 1939, the Investment Company Act of 1940, the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, the Sarbanes–Oxley Act of 2002, and other statutes. Do you have an actual theory as to which laws Tether may have violated? I have a hard time believing that they'd qualify as investment advisors or have to comply with reporting requirements for publicly listed companies. >Despite what a crypto telegram group may suggest, the SEC does more than just run the so called 'Howey Test'. I don't use telegram or participate in any crypto groups, so I wouldn't know what they'd suggest. >Honestly I dont know what tether fan boys are so scared of, unless they know it is a scam - a regulator and/or court approval is what they should want, it is what everyone should want. If you believe in crypto you have to campaign for it to be properly classified, that will be they turning point. I'm not a fan of Tether, I expect they will go the way of Liberty Reserve one way or another. Decentralized solutions like Dai have far better chances of success. I'm just trying to advocate for reasonable discourse and serious analysis of the involved legislation instead of circlejerking. >As for the 'expectations of profits' zero coupon bonds look identical There is no 'expectation of profits' test for bonds which are specifically defined to be a security (see 15 U.S. Code § 77b(a)(1).

by FDSGSG 5y ago

floatingatoll 5y ago

Please indicate your interpretation of the Howey test so that we’re able to consider and respond to your assertion; without knowing why you feel it doesn’t pass them, it’s not really possible for us to consider your comment.

FDSGSG 5y ago
The SEC has provided us with a handy framework to help analyze whether or not a digital asset is likely to meet the Howey Test, you can try it out at https://www.sec.gov/files/dlt-framework.pdf https://www.sec.gov/files/dlt-framework.pdf >C. Reasonable Expectation of Profits Derived from Efforts of Others There is no expectation of profits from Tether tokens. In fact, you are guaranteed to lose money to inflation even if everything works out perfectly.
- floatingatoll 5y ago
  There are thousands of search results for “Why should I invest in Tether?”, indicating that general public investors may well expect a profit from their investment in it. After all, if there was no general expectation of profit, how else would Get Rich Quick scam pages sway the general public so easily to invest in it, and why else would these pages exist at all? An investment with no profit potential does not attract flies, and investment is not explicitly restricted to businesses that have fiduciary need to use Tether on behalf of non-investors. It’s certainly enough for the SEC to bring it to trial. I would encourage you to reconsider your assumption that someone commenting about the Howey test needs you to explain what it is to them. It’s very thoughtful of you to offer that PDF, but offer it with less “you obviously don’t know what you’re talking about” condescension next time, please. (I am not your lawyer, this is not legal advice, etc.)
  - FDSGSG 5y ago
    >There are thousands of search results for “Why should I invest in Tether?” But according to google trends nobody ever googles this, and most results appear to be automatically generated SEO spam or not discussing tether as an investment. >indicating that general public investors may well expect a profit from their investment in it. Whether or not such an expectation is reasonable is highly relevant. There cannot possibly be any reasonable expectation of profit as USDT will never be redeemed at above 1 USD, you can only lose money. You seem to be suggesting that unrelated third parties could turn USDT into a security by lying that it's a great investment. I do not think that's true, I think that's simply fraud perpetrated by the third parties. Some Indian SEO spammer can't possibly be the one to decide if USDT is a security or not. > Get Rich Quick scam pages sway the general public so easily to invest in it, and why else would these pages exist at all? This is not actually happening. You can find automatically generated SEO spam pages saying essentially anything, but according to Googles own stats this just isn't a real thing. > An investment with no profit potential does not attract flies, and investment is not explicitly restricted to businesses that have fiduciary need to use Tether on behalf of non-investors. You have made zero effort to show that there are actually reasonable people investing in tether with the expectation of earning a profit. So far there's no indication that they exist, it seems extremely unlikely that such a person could exist (they wouldn't be reasonable). > It’s certainly enough for the SEC to bring it to trial. The SEC can sue you for any bullshit reason, does not mean that their suit won't be immediately thrown out. >It’s very thoughtful of you to offer that PDF, but offer it with less “you obviously don’t know what you’re talking about” condescension next time, please. I had no intention of being condescending by linking that PDF. I had forgotten that it exists, and was happy to find it again as it provides what seems to be the clearest public framework for assessing these things. I'll admit that I'm a little frustrated to see so many commentators here seemingly using their dislike of Tether to justify the kind of weird mental gymnastics required to argue that the SEC should go after Tether. The SEC is simply not the correct regulator for this, there's no indication that they might be. I'd get it if there was case law to support some of these crazy interpretations of "expectation of profits", but there isn't.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

blitzar 5y ago

In addition to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, which created it, the SEC enforces the Securities Act of 1933, the Trust Indenture Act of 1939, the Investment Company Act of 1940, the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, the Sarbanes–Oxley Act of 2002, and other statutes. Despite what a crypto telegram group may suggest, the SEC does more than just run the so called 'Howey Test'. Honestly I dont know what tether fan boys are so scared of, unless they know it is a scam - a regulator and/or court approval is what they should want, it is what everyone should want. If you believe in crypto you have to campaign for it to be properly classified, that will be they turning point. As for the 'expectations of profits' zero coupon bonds look identical, collateralised debt obligations on zero yeilding instruments looks identical, USD deposits look identical and JC penny gift cards look identical to tether. Additionally tether can be bought and sold for profit, I personally have done it 1,000s of times.

FDSGSG 5y ago
>In addition to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, which created it, the SEC enforces the Securities Act of 1933, the Trust Indenture Act of 1939, the Investment Company Act of 1940, the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, the Sarbanes–Oxley Act of 2002, and other statutes. Do you have an actual theory as to which laws Tether may have violated? I have a hard time believing that they'd qualify as investment advisors or have to comply with reporting requirements for publicly listed companies. >Despite what a crypto telegram group may suggest, the SEC does more than just run the so called 'Howey Test'. I don't use telegram or participate in any crypto groups, so I wouldn't know what they'd suggest. >Honestly I dont know what tether fan boys are so scared of, unless they know it is a scam - a regulator and/or court approval is what they should want, it is what everyone should want. If you believe in crypto you have to campaign for it to be properly classified, that will be they turning point. I'm not a fan of Tether, I expect they will go the way of Liberty Reserve one way or another. Decentralized solutions like Dai have far better chances of success. I'm just trying to advocate for reasonable discourse and serious analysis of the involved legislation instead of circlejerking. >As for the 'expectations of profits' zero coupon bonds look identical There is no 'expectation of profits' test for bonds which are specifically defined to be a security (see 15 U.S. Code § 77b(a)(1).