7 ms·

Serious question: is it really? I always thought that crypto was specifically not rated as a financial asset and thus didn’t have nearly as strict regulation as

Serious question: is it really? I always thought that crypto was specifically not rated as a financial asset and thus didn’t have nearly as strict regulation as other financial products. For example what is the difference between 1% daily returns vs some cleaning product claiming it can remove all stains? I always assume both to be marketing lies. And I assume in both cases there is some fine print T&C that denies legal liability/contextualises claims. I might be totally incorrect here but this is always how I saw crypto, unregulated, buy at your own risk, marketed products.

PragmaticPulp 4y ago
> Serious question: is it really? I always thought that crypto was specifically not rated as a financial asset and thus didn’t have nearly as strict regulation as other financial products. If someone makes a product that acts like a financial security, they are required to comply with securities laws. The laws don’t have to explicitly say “this also applies to crypto”. This is what many crypto projects are being held accountable for as the enforcement agencies catch up. If you offer a security but don’t adhere to securities laws, you are breaking the law. Of course, many projects sidestep this altogether by operating out of countries that don’t have such regulations. > For example what is the difference between 1% daily returns vs some cleaning product claiming it can remove all stains? I always assume both to be marketing lies. And I assume in both cases there is some fine print T&C that denies legal liability/contextualises claims. The difference is that financial products have a lot of regulations and laws beyond just marketing claims. The difference between an interest-bearing security and a carpet cleaning product is so huge that I’m surprised you think they can even be compared in terms of regulation. Securities and financial law goes far, far beyond marketing claims. It’s entirely unreasonable to think that financial instruments can simply promise something and then not deliver it because they say “just kidding” somewhere in the fine print.
olalonde 4y ago
IANAL, but I believe the generic U.S. wire fraud law would cover the examples I mentioned. As to why it doesn't cover advertising a "cleaning product claiming it can remove all stain", I am not sure but my best guess is that it might not fully satisfy the "intent to defraud" or "material fact" elements.

PragmaticPulp 4y ago

> Serious question: is it really? I always thought that crypto was specifically not rated as a financial asset and thus didn’t have nearly as strict regulation as other financial products. If someone makes a product that acts like a financial security, they are required to comply with securities laws. The laws don’t have to explicitly say “this also applies to crypto”. This is what many crypto projects are being held accountable for as the enforcement agencies catch up. If you offer a security but don’t adhere to securities laws, you are breaking the law. Of course, many projects sidestep this altogether by operating out of countries that don’t have such regulations. > For example what is the difference between 1% daily returns vs some cleaning product claiming it can remove all stains? I always assume both to be marketing lies. And I assume in both cases there is some fine print T&C that denies legal liability/contextualises claims. The difference is that financial products have a lot of regulations and laws beyond just marketing claims. The difference between an interest-bearing security and a carpet cleaning product is so huge that I’m surprised you think they can even be compared in terms of regulation. Securities and financial law goes far, far beyond marketing claims. It’s entirely unreasonable to think that financial instruments can simply promise something and then not deliver it because they say “just kidding” somewhere in the fine print.

olalonde 4y ago

IANAL, but I believe the generic U.S. wire fraud law would cover the examples I mentioned. As to why it doesn't cover advertising a "cleaning product claiming it can remove all stain", I am not sure but my best guess is that it might not fully satisfy the "intent to defraud" or "material fact" elements.