3 ms·

Not sure the relevance, or how this story would remind you of that program, since BlockFi doesn’t issue a token, nor was the product in question secret. Disclo

by SilasX 5y ago

Not sure the relevance, or how this story would remind you of that program, since BlockFi doesn’t issue a token, nor was the product in question secret. Disclosure: used BlockFi’s lending program and had pulled out most of my holdings for unrelated reasons by last week.

capableweb 5y ago
Agreed. The SEC claims it broke regulations by doing "unregistered offers and sales of the lending product", "operated for more than 18 months as an unregistered investment company" and "false and misleading statement for more than two years on its website concerning the level of risk", none of which would be exposed by a whistleblower but instead by just going to their website or having an account there. Nothing that requires someone from inside the company to whistleblow anything.
- pavlov 5y ago
  And if that's available just by going to a crypto company's website, imagine what kind of evidence an insider may have access to.
Cederfjard 5y ago
I think it was pretty easy to follow the reasoning. Cryptocurrency companies seem too often play fast and loose with laws and regulations, and the SEC can and will fine them. In addition, whistleblowers can get handsomely rewarded. Ergo, it might soon start to look more and more attractive for a lot of employees to tell on their employers. Even if this particular case didn't go down like that, I still think it's an interesting point that's relevant to the discussion.
- SilasX 5y ago
  I got that reasoning just fine, and had no trouble following it. I was objecting to the flimsy pretense of bringing it up on a case that obviously doesn’t need whistleblowers since it was all done out in the open and advertised, and everyone agrees on all facts-on-the-ground but only ever differed on legal interpretation. > Even if this particular case didn't go down like that, I still think it's an interesting point that's relevant to the discussion. There are lots of things I’m sure you and I might find interesting. But HN doesn’t benefit from the practice of “ooh, let me use this topic as a pretense to post something I wanted to share regardless, and without reading the article”.
  - gtyras2mrs 5y ago
    > There are lots of things I’m sure you and I might find interesting. But HN doesn’t benefit from the practice of “ooh, let me use this topic as a pretense to post something I wanted to share regardless, and without reading the article”. I disagree. The comment is related to the discussion (about SEC action) and the comment was pretty interesting and added value to the comment section On the other hand, posting shallow dismissals and implying that they haven't read the article is not adding value to the comment section.

by SilasX 5y ago

capableweb 5y ago

Agreed. The SEC claims it broke regulations by doing "unregistered offers and sales of the lending product", "operated for more than 18 months as an unregistered investment company" and "false and misleading statement for more than two years on its website concerning the level of risk", none of which would be exposed by a whistleblower but instead by just going to their website or having an account there. Nothing that requires someone from inside the company to whistleblow anything.

pavlov 5y ago
And if that's available just by going to a crypto company's website, imagine what kind of evidence an insider may have access to.

Cederfjard 5y ago

I think it was pretty easy to follow the reasoning. Cryptocurrency companies seem too often play fast and loose with laws and regulations, and the SEC can and will fine them. In addition, whistleblowers can get handsomely rewarded. Ergo, it might soon start to look more and more attractive for a lot of employees to tell on their employers. Even if this particular case didn't go down like that, I still think it's an interesting point that's relevant to the discussion.

SilasX 5y ago
I got that reasoning just fine, and had no trouble following it. I was objecting to the flimsy pretense of bringing it up on a case that obviously doesn’t need whistleblowers since it was all done out in the open and advertised, and everyone agrees on all facts-on-the-ground but only ever differed on legal interpretation. > Even if this particular case didn't go down like that, I still think it's an interesting point that's relevant to the discussion. There are lots of things I’m sure you and I might find interesting. But HN doesn’t benefit from the practice of “ooh, let me use this topic as a pretense to post something I wanted to share regardless, and without reading the article”.
- gtyras2mrs 5y ago
  > There are lots of things I’m sure you and I might find interesting. But HN doesn’t benefit from the practice of “ooh, let me use this topic as a pretense to post something I wanted to share regardless, and without reading the article”. I disagree. The comment is related to the discussion (about SEC action) and the comment was pretty interesting and added value to the comment section On the other hand, posting shallow dismissals and implying that they haven't read the article is not adding value to the comment section.