5 ms·

The SEC’s former head of internet enforcement fears how the crypto story ends

17 points by elsewhen 5y ago

cft 5y ago
The western government's desire to protect the plebes, the gangster tactic, is the scariest Western development of the 21st century. Instead of trusting people with their faculty of deciding for themselves.
- isitmadeofglass 5y ago
  Yes, we all saw this strategy working just wonderfully with the US engineered opioid epidemic. Cars are required to have seatbelts by law for good reason, and no we should not just “trust people with their faculty of deciding for themselves”
  - landemva 5y ago
    Opioid epidemic was enabled by government allowing oligarchy control of medical system and refusal for years to enforce existing laws. Years later the Feds get money fines while real harm to real lives was done. The Feds refuse to adequately regulate. Another example is 2008 bank failures of the regulators, and then refusal to file criminal charges against bankers or rating agencies.
    - pixl97 5y ago
      Eh, this is a very libertarian's and one sided view. Greedy idiots, if they are the bank owner, the unchecked regulator, or the common pleb looking to make a quick buck are all social dangers that must be dealt with properly.
      - landemva 5y ago
        It is unclear to me how these two examples of government failure have anything to do with libertarian views. The bank regulators failed and basically nobody was criminally charged for running undercapitalized financial institutions.
- toomuchtodo 5y ago
  Unsophisticated investors require protective mechanisms, because a lot of people don’t have the intellectual or emotional faculties to make less harmful choices. A function of government is harm reduction at scale, ergo this falls within their mandate.
  - landemva 5y ago
    ' A function of government is harm reduction at scale ' Specifically which of the enumerated powers in USA constitution provides for federal government protecting unsophisticated investors? Maybe there is a place for the States to do this task.
    - credit_guy 5y ago
      It's not clear which one, but the SEC was created by an act of Congress. It has a 3-part mission, to protect investors, maintain fair, orderly, and efficient markets, and Facilitate capital formation [1]. If the law were unconstitutional, I guess someone would have challenged it, and the Supreme Court would have struck it down at some point in the 88 years that have passed since the SEC was created. [1] https://www.investor.gov/introduction-investing/investing-basics/role-sec https://www.investor.gov/introduction-investing/investing-ba...
      - landemva 5y ago
        Expensive to challenge government in court. Would need to set up standing, show harm, and then fund the federal court (loss) and hope USSC allows petition to be heard. USSC chooses if they want to accept a case. If someone can afford this excursion, they can simply get their accountant to write opinion letter of being a 'qualified investor'. https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2020-191 https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2020-191 The middle class and poor aren't able to challenge it. The wealthy and near-wealthy aren't affected by it. That does not mean it is constitutional.

17 points by elsewhen 5y ago

cft 5y ago

The western government's desire to protect the plebes, the gangster tactic, is the scariest Western development of the 21st century. Instead of trusting people with their faculty of deciding for themselves.

isitmadeofglass 5y ago
Yes, we all saw this strategy working just wonderfully with the US engineered opioid epidemic. Cars are required to have seatbelts by law for good reason, and no we should not just “trust people with their faculty of deciding for themselves”
- landemva 5y ago
  Opioid epidemic was enabled by government allowing oligarchy control of medical system and refusal for years to enforce existing laws. Years later the Feds get money fines while real harm to real lives was done. The Feds refuse to adequately regulate. Another example is 2008 bank failures of the regulators, and then refusal to file criminal charges against bankers or rating agencies.
  - pixl97 5y ago
    Eh, this is a very libertarian's and one sided view. Greedy idiots, if they are the bank owner, the unchecked regulator, or the common pleb looking to make a quick buck are all social dangers that must be dealt with properly.
    - landemva 5y ago
      It is unclear to me how these two examples of government failure have anything to do with libertarian views. The bank regulators failed and basically nobody was criminally charged for running undercapitalized financial institutions.
toomuchtodo 5y ago
Unsophisticated investors require protective mechanisms, because a lot of people don’t have the intellectual or emotional faculties to make less harmful choices. A function of government is harm reduction at scale, ergo this falls within their mandate.
- landemva 5y ago
  ' A function of government is harm reduction at scale ' Specifically which of the enumerated powers in USA constitution provides for federal government protecting unsophisticated investors? Maybe there is a place for the States to do this task.
  - credit_guy 5y ago
    It's not clear which one, but the SEC was created by an act of Congress. It has a 3-part mission, to protect investors, maintain fair, orderly, and efficient markets, and Facilitate capital formation [1]. If the law were unconstitutional, I guess someone would have challenged it, and the Supreme Court would have struck it down at some point in the 88 years that have passed since the SEC was created. [1] https://www.investor.gov/introduction-investing/investing-basics/role-sec https://www.investor.gov/introduction-investing/investing-ba...
    - landemva 5y ago
      Expensive to challenge government in court. Would need to set up standing, show harm, and then fund the federal court (loss) and hope USSC allows petition to be heard. USSC chooses if they want to accept a case. If someone can afford this excursion, they can simply get their accountant to write opinion letter of being a 'qualified investor'. https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2020-191 https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2020-191 The middle class and poor aren't able to challenge it. The wealthy and near-wealthy aren't affected by it. That does not mean it is constitutional.