4 ms·
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
by 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 agoI 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.