4 ms·
Yeah, it may be a way to officially call at least some of them securities: > "We are not concerned with labels, but rather the economic realities of an offerin
by H8crilA 4y ago
Yeah, it may be a way to officially call at least some of them securities:
> "We are not concerned with labels, but rather the economic realities of an offering," said Gurbir S. Grewal, Director of the SEC’s Division of Enforcement. "In this case, those realities affirm that a number of the crypto assets at issue were securities, and, as alleged, the defendants engaged in typical insider trading ahead of their listing on Coinbase. Rest assured, we’ll continue to ensure a level playing field for investors, regardless of the label placed on the securities involved."
Should this go to the courts which end up deciding that they are in fact securities - that will be a nice precedent.
- vba616 4y agoI kind of see the point of those who think this is obnoxious and damaging to the rule of law, even if what Grewal says is perfectly true. Just because one part of the government thinks something is a security, even for logical reasons, doesn't mean every other part agrees. The SEC is not the supreme and only authority, which means you can't simply obey its whims. Why does it have to be fought out in court with no master plan? If X, Y, and Z are securities, then why can't the government label them as such and enforce that others do? Why can't rules and regulations be made in an orderly fashion so that people know what is legal without costly litigation? I mean, those are rhetorical questions; it seems like the reason is everybody is making it up as they go along and there's no leadership. It's like "move fast and break things" has become so standard that nobody bothers to say "wait, breaking things because you don't look before you leap is wasteful". It's just how we do things here.