4 ms·

> The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has been investigating Kwon Do-Hyung for violating the Securities Act, claiming that the blockchain service that

> The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has been investigating Kwon Do-Hyung for violating the Securities Act, claiming that the blockchain service that made it possible to buy US equities with Terra was a violation of the Securities Act. FWIW this is the important part, not the fact that he was allegedly sending himself money.

wmf 4y ago
Speak for yourself. Encouraging people to buy into your system while you're personally cashing out is ethically dubious.
- RandomThrow321 4y ago
  Sure, but this has wider implications beyond a single example.
- beardedetim 4y ago
  Ethically dubious, sure. But legally?
- mistrial9 4y ago
  - rank0 4y ago
    She's leaving Meta
  - CobrastanJorji 4y ago
    Those were sold gradually over a decade-long period, the majority of which were before 2015.
  - makoz 4y ago
    Aren't all sales at that level disclosed publicly, well in advanced/regulated?
- Alex3917 4y ago
  Sure, all I'm saying is that if this is the SEC signaling that they're going to go after Tether next then that's a lot more interesting.
  - rvz 4y ago
    Exactly, That's the brutal truth behind all the reactions and outrage in this thread. Since the SEC is going after Do Kwon, it tells us that they are not letting him get away with his exit scam. That is the point. After this, I will expect more regulations [0] to come forward and will especially impact Tether. That would be interesting. Not only that, this will wipe out the useless token projects with no use or utility but the compliant cryptocurrencies like the ones in ISO 20020 with continue to survive. These cryptocurrencies are not all going to be as the critics keep saying; 'totally destoryed' 100% banned entirely and instead they will continue to co-exist with the current system rather than 'overthrow' it. It's here to stay I'm afraid. [0] https://www.pymnts.com/cryptocurrency/2022/push-to-regulate-stablecoins-gains-momentum-as-terrausd-spirals https://www.pymnts.com/cryptocurrency/2022/push-to-regulate-...
latchkey 4y ago
Mirror protocol. https://mirror.finance/ https://mirror.finance/ It wasn't buying an equity, it was buying a token that was the same price as the equity. Buying the token had no effect on the upward price of the equity. I can see why the SEC is protective of that, for sure. The bigger issue is that Mirror was hacked and nobody knew about it, for seven months. https://rekt.news/mirror-rekt/ https://rekt.news/mirror-rekt/
- oldgradstudent 4y ago
  > It wasn't buying an equity, it was buying a token that was the same price as the equity. Buying the token had no effect on the upward price of the equity Sounds like a derivative to me. That is also a type of security.
  - latchkey 4y ago
    The mirror documentation [1] calls it a 'synthetic asset'. This mechanism is also how they also offered BTC and ETH on their network (as mBTC and mETH). To be clear, I wasn't trying to debate the nature of if it is a security or not. [1] https://docs.mirror.finance/ https://docs.mirror.finance/
    - r00fus 4y ago
      "synthetic asset" and "derivative" sound like Venn-diagram that's just a circle.
      - subroutine 4y ago
        Reminds me of the scene in The Big Short where Baum learns about synthetic CDOs. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A25EUhZGBws&t=111s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A25EUhZGBws&t=111s
        dogma1138 4y ago
        Synthetic in finance just means a combination of two or more products/calls etc. So if you make a financial product that encompasses two different derivatives it would be a synthetic derivative. It’s mostly a meaningless term as far as regulation goes.

wmf 4y ago

Speak for yourself. Encouraging people to buy into your system while you're personally cashing out is ethically dubious.

RandomThrow321 4y ago
Sure, but this has wider implications beyond a single example.
beardedetim 4y ago
Ethically dubious, sure. But legally?
mistrial9 4y ago
- rank0 4y ago
  She's leaving Meta
- CobrastanJorji 4y ago
  Those were sold gradually over a decade-long period, the majority of which were before 2015.
- makoz 4y ago
  Aren't all sales at that level disclosed publicly, well in advanced/regulated?
Alex3917 4y ago
Sure, all I'm saying is that if this is the SEC signaling that they're going to go after Tether next then that's a lot more interesting.
- rvz 4y ago
  Exactly, That's the brutal truth behind all the reactions and outrage in this thread. Since the SEC is going after Do Kwon, it tells us that they are not letting him get away with his exit scam. That is the point. After this, I will expect more regulations [0] to come forward and will especially impact Tether. That would be interesting. Not only that, this will wipe out the useless token projects with no use or utility but the compliant cryptocurrencies like the ones in ISO 20020 with continue to survive. These cryptocurrencies are not all going to be as the critics keep saying; 'totally destoryed' 100% banned entirely and instead they will continue to co-exist with the current system rather than 'overthrow' it. It's here to stay I'm afraid. [0] https://www.pymnts.com/cryptocurrency/2022/push-to-regulate-stablecoins-gains-momentum-as-terrausd-spirals https://www.pymnts.com/cryptocurrency/2022/push-to-regulate-...

latchkey 4y ago

Mirror protocol. https://mirror.finance/ https://mirror.finance/ It wasn't buying an equity, it was buying a token that was the same price as the equity. Buying the token had no effect on the upward price of the equity. I can see why the SEC is protective of that, for sure. The bigger issue is that Mirror was hacked and nobody knew about it, for seven months. https://rekt.news/mirror-rekt/ https://rekt.news/mirror-rekt/

oldgradstudent 4y ago
> It wasn't buying an equity, it was buying a token that was the same price as the equity. Buying the token had no effect on the upward price of the equity Sounds like a derivative to me. That is also a type of security.
- latchkey 4y ago
  The mirror documentation [1] calls it a 'synthetic asset'. This mechanism is also how they also offered BTC and ETH on their network (as mBTC and mETH). To be clear, I wasn't trying to debate the nature of if it is a security or not. [1] https://docs.mirror.finance/ https://docs.mirror.finance/
  - r00fus 4y ago
    "synthetic asset" and "derivative" sound like Venn-diagram that's just a circle.
    - subroutine 4y ago
      Reminds me of the scene in The Big Short where Baum learns about synthetic CDOs. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A25EUhZGBws&t=111s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A25EUhZGBws&t=111s
      - dogma1138 4y ago
        Synthetic in finance just means a combination of two or more products/calls etc. So if you make a financial product that encompasses two different derivatives it would be a synthetic derivative. It’s mostly a meaningless term as far as regulation goes.