4 ms·

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...
jollybean 5y ago
"I would like there to at least be clarity " It's clear if you want it to be. The reason it's sometimes not clear, is because companies want to go right up to the line of 'crypto' without it actually being a security, in order to defraud people. 'Insider Trading' isn't always perfectly clear either, but it's really clear if you want to steer clear of it.
- hackingforfun 5y ago
  Is Bitcoin a security? How is something that is decentralized a security? If it was a security, should there be charges against Satoshi Nakamoto, who no one can reliably tie an identity to, and who might even be deceased? Or should the Bitcoin Core dev team be charged, in that case? Or should Bitcoin miners be charged? In my opinion, it's more nuanced than you make it out to be. The way I'm interpreting what you are saying is that you would like if everyone would just abandon crypto and avoid it, because some / all of them could be considered a security (or because you and others don't like it, for other reasons, I'm not sure, exactly). The only way that it could be "clear" is if the SEC explicitly says which ones are securities, which has not happened, except for a few specific cases [1][2][3][4][5]. By the way, I'm for the SEC going after bad actors / scams, although I'm not convinced that that is what's happening with all of these cases, although perhaps some of them. Anyway, since you mentioned companies, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here, and I generally agree that crypto companies should maybe reconsider the position of skirting regulation. However, if we are talking about the crypto ecosystem as a whole, then I do not agree. I personally think this is new territory and crypto will play an important role in the future of our financial systems. [1] https://www.sec.gov/enforce/33-10715-s https://www.sec.gov/enforce/33-10715-s [2] https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2020-338 https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2020-338 [3] https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2021-172 https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2021-172 [4] https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2020-262 https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2020-262 [5] https://blog.coinbase.com/the-sec-has-told-us-it-wants-to-sue-us-over-lend-we-have-no-idea-why-a3a1b6507009 https://blog.coinbase.com/the-sec-has-told-us-it-wants-to-su...
  - jollybean 5y ago
    Nobody is saying BTC is a security. The SEC is saying that 'Kin' token is a security [1][2]. The SEC has already defined what a security is, so if you want them to not classify your new token as a security, then don't make it one. Kin was sold just like a stock in a company, but without the disclosure or other rights. BTC was not. [1] https://cointelegraph.com/news/sec-vs-kik-interactive-a-status-update-on-the-kin-ecosystem-and-kin-tokens https://cointelegraph.com/news/sec-vs-kik-interactive-a-stat... [2] https://www.dlapiper.com/en/us/insights/publications/2020/10/sec-wins-summary-judgment-that-kin-token-is-a-security/ https://www.dlapiper.com/en/us/insights/publications/2020/10...

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...

jollybean 5y ago

"I would like there to at least be clarity " It's clear if you want it to be. The reason it's sometimes not clear, is because companies want to go right up to the line of 'crypto' without it actually being a security, in order to defraud people. 'Insider Trading' isn't always perfectly clear either, but it's really clear if you want to steer clear of it.

hackingforfun 5y ago
Is Bitcoin a security? How is something that is decentralized a security? If it was a security, should there be charges against Satoshi Nakamoto, who no one can reliably tie an identity to, and who might even be deceased? Or should the Bitcoin Core dev team be charged, in that case? Or should Bitcoin miners be charged? In my opinion, it's more nuanced than you make it out to be. The way I'm interpreting what you are saying is that you would like if everyone would just abandon crypto and avoid it, because some / all of them could be considered a security (or because you and others don't like it, for other reasons, I'm not sure, exactly). The only way that it could be "clear" is if the SEC explicitly says which ones are securities, which has not happened, except for a few specific cases [1][2][3][4][5]. By the way, I'm for the SEC going after bad actors / scams, although I'm not convinced that that is what's happening with all of these cases, although perhaps some of them. Anyway, since you mentioned companies, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here, and I generally agree that crypto companies should maybe reconsider the position of skirting regulation. However, if we are talking about the crypto ecosystem as a whole, then I do not agree. I personally think this is new territory and crypto will play an important role in the future of our financial systems. [1] https://www.sec.gov/enforce/33-10715-s https://www.sec.gov/enforce/33-10715-s [2] https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2020-338 https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2020-338 [3] https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2021-172 https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2021-172 [4] https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2020-262 https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2020-262 [5] https://blog.coinbase.com/the-sec-has-told-us-it-wants-to-sue-us-over-lend-we-have-no-idea-why-a3a1b6507009 https://blog.coinbase.com/the-sec-has-told-us-it-wants-to-su...
- jollybean 5y ago
  Nobody is saying BTC is a security. The SEC is saying that 'Kin' token is a security [1][2]. The SEC has already defined what a security is, so if you want them to not classify your new token as a security, then don't make it one. Kin was sold just like a stock in a company, but without the disclosure or other rights. BTC was not. [1] https://cointelegraph.com/news/sec-vs-kik-interactive-a-status-update-on-the-kin-ecosystem-and-kin-tokens https://cointelegraph.com/news/sec-vs-kik-interactive-a-stat... [2] https://www.dlapiper.com/en/us/insights/publications/2020/10/sec-wins-summary-judgment-that-kin-token-is-a-security/ https://www.dlapiper.com/en/us/insights/publications/2020/10...