4 ms·

Securities laws were about disclosures, right? Since many cryptos are open source, how is that immaterial?

jollybean 5y ago
Because the value of the crypto is ostensibly based on the performance of an underlying asset, hence then need disclosure. It doesn't matter if you call it a 'stock or a crypto' - it's a security either way, is the point.
- hackingforfun 5y ago
  My point is disclosures are different in stocks vs crypto and we shouldn't just group them all into one category. I'm just wondering, do you think that we should never refine our securities laws for new technology, ever?
  - toomuchtodo 5y ago
    Crypto falls neatly into either a securities or commodities basket from a regulatory perspective (depending on implementation), no new category required. It seems, from a cursory glance, those asking for new regulation are asking for the avoidance of regulation, not similar regulation to other asset classes. That isn't regulation, and hence the tone of responses to these sorts of efforts by the crypto "industry". Even worse is the stance "our technology doesn't support regulatory intervention" (ie smart contracts that have no support for when regulators or the judiciary intervene).
    - hackingforfun 5y ago
      I would like there to at least be clarity on which basket it falls into, if not a new category.
      - verdverm 5y ago
        It's case-by-case, not one size fits all. Hence why there needs to be analysis, disclosure, and regulations being followed
        hackingforfun 5y ago
        It's a good point, and I think I would generally agree with this. I just wish the SEC was keeping up with technological innovation. At this point crypto is moving faster than they can keep up with, so I don't think they can accurately judge new crypto projects (or even older ones like Bitcoin and Ethereum), because they don't have the technical skill on their staff, or a modern regulatory framework, to understand and regulate it properly.
        verdverm 5y ago
        The Chair of the SEC taught crypto at MIT [1]. As much as the SEC needs to upskill, crypto needs to accept they are not going to replace the existing systems and they deserve no exceptions in regulation. What we need is competition in rule making, generally. See "Rules for a Flat World" [1] https://www.sec.gov/biography/gary-gensler https://www.sec.gov/biography/gary-gensler
        hackingforfun 5y ago
        I know who Gary Gensler is and I respect him for the teaching he did at MIT. I'm talking about the staff of the SEC as a whole. In my opinion, they are not moving fast enough or keeping up with technological innovation. I'm just wondering, have you read Gary Gensler's comments at the Aspen Security Forum [1]? I particularly like this quote: "Before starting at the SEC, I had the honor of researching, writing, and teaching about the intersection of finance and technology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. This included courses on crypto finance, blockchain technology, and money. In that work, I came to believe that, though there was a lot of hype masquerading as reality in the crypto field, Nakamoto’s innovation is real. Further, it has been and could continue to be a catalyst for change in the fields of finance and money." I have not read, but will look up, "Rules for a Flat World". Thank you for the reference. [1] https://www.sec.gov/news/public-statement/gensler-aspen-security-forum-2021-08-03 https://www.sec.gov/news/public-statement/gensler-aspen-secu...
airstrike 5y ago
The disclosure we need from crypto is not a technological one

Because the value of the crypto is ostensibly based on the performance of an underlying asset, hence then need disclosure. It doesn't matter if you call it a 'stock or a crypto' - it's a security either way, is the point.

hackingforfun 5y ago
My point is disclosures are different in stocks vs crypto and we shouldn't just group them all into one category. I'm just wondering, do you think that we should never refine our securities laws for new technology, ever?
- toomuchtodo 5y ago
  Crypto falls neatly into either a securities or commodities basket from a regulatory perspective (depending on implementation), no new category required. It seems, from a cursory glance, those asking for new regulation are asking for the avoidance of regulation, not similar regulation to other asset classes. That isn't regulation, and hence the tone of responses to these sorts of efforts by the crypto "industry". Even worse is the stance "our technology doesn't support regulatory intervention" (ie smart contracts that have no support for when regulators or the judiciary intervene).
  - hackingforfun 5y ago
    I would like there to at least be clarity on which basket it falls into, if not a new category.
    - verdverm 5y ago
      It's case-by-case, not one size fits all. Hence why there needs to be analysis, disclosure, and regulations being followed
      - hackingforfun 5y ago
        It's a good point, and I think I would generally agree with this. I just wish the SEC was keeping up with technological innovation. At this point crypto is moving faster than they can keep up with, so I don't think they can accurately judge new crypto projects (or even older ones like Bitcoin and Ethereum), because they don't have the technical skill on their staff, or a modern regulatory framework, to understand and regulate it properly.
        verdverm 5y ago
        The Chair of the SEC taught crypto at MIT [1]. As much as the SEC needs to upskill, crypto needs to accept they are not going to replace the existing systems and they deserve no exceptions in regulation. What we need is competition in rule making, generally. See "Rules for a Flat World" [1] https://www.sec.gov/biography/gary-gensler https://www.sec.gov/biography/gary-gensler
        hackingforfun 5y ago
        I know who Gary Gensler is and I respect him for the teaching he did at MIT. I'm talking about the staff of the SEC as a whole. In my opinion, they are not moving fast enough or keeping up with technological innovation. I'm just wondering, have you read Gary Gensler's comments at the Aspen Security Forum [1]? I particularly like this quote: "Before starting at the SEC, I had the honor of researching, writing, and teaching about the intersection of finance and technology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. This included courses on crypto finance, blockchain technology, and money. In that work, I came to believe that, though there was a lot of hype masquerading as reality in the crypto field, Nakamoto’s innovation is real. Further, it has been and could continue to be a catalyst for change in the fields of finance and money." I have not read, but will look up, "Rules for a Flat World". Thank you for the reference. [1] https://www.sec.gov/news/public-statement/gensler-aspen-security-forum-2021-08-03 https://www.sec.gov/news/public-statement/gensler-aspen-secu...

airstrike 5y ago

The disclosure we need from crypto is not a technological one