8 ms·

Coinbase does not list securities. End of story

30 points by kgwgk 4y ago

senttoschool 4y ago
Of course Coinbase will say they're not securities. All crypto should be treated as securities. The rampant insider trading, lack of transparency in project finances and decision making is insane. I've consulted for a few crypto projects. In most of them, the founders completely misused ICO funds for personal gains and traded their own tokens with inside info. If your project token is available to be purchased and sold in the US, they should be subject to the same rules other securities follow. Scamming people shouldn't be this easy.
- missedthecue 4y ago
  Just because you can insider trade doesn't make something a security in my view. You can do insider trading around gold or palladium or any other commodity for instance. You can do insider trading with property and land. You can even do insider trading with currencies.
  - mikeyouse 4y ago
    They're not securities because you can insider trade them -- they're securities because they fairly clearly meet the Federal definition; > The term “security” means any note, stock, treasury stock, security future, security-based swap, bond, debenture, evidence of indebtedness, certificate of interest or participation in any profit-sharing agreement, collateral-trust certificate, preorganization certificate or subscription, transferable share, investment contract, voting-trust certificate, certificate of deposit for a security, fractional undivided interest in oil, gas, or other mineral rights, any put, call, straddle, option, or privilege on any security, certificate of deposit, or group or index of securities (including any interest therein or based on the value thereof), or any put, call, straddle, option, or privilege entered into on a national securities exchange relating to foreign currency, or, in general, any interest or instrument commonly known as a “security”, or any certificate of interest or participation in, temporary or interim certificate for, receipt for, guarantee of, or warrant or right to subscribe to or purchase, any of the foregoing. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/77b https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/77b
    - bpodgursky 4y ago
      Your comment has not contributed anything. Which of those many categories do you think crypto falls within? For example, foreign currency is not a security, and an intuitive stance would be that crypto is far closer to foreign currency than it is to stocks. Other sources have a more useful definition in my opinion [1]: > Firstly, a security is simply a financial instrument that represents a specific ownership position in either a corporation, a creditor related to a governmental body, a publicly traded corporation, or rights to ownership as represented by an option. The security must represent some type of financial value. Securities are generally categorised as either debts or equities, with a debt security indicating money that has been borrowed and must be repaid. Under this definition, it is hard to see how the average "boring" cryptocurrency is a security. [1] https://www.onefinancialmarkets.com/securities-vs-forex https://www.onefinancialmarkets.com/securities-vs-forex
      - dataflow 4y ago
        > The security must represent some type of financial value This is probably going to be the point of contention. There's no shortage of people wanting to argue Bitcoin really does have financial value, cures cancer, etc...
      - westurner 4y ago
        Is "must be an agreement for future performance" a fair first test of whether something is a securities contract? 1) If there is no contractual agreement for future performance, it cannot be a securities contract (a "security"). That we can test before applying 2) the Howey Test, and then 3) assessing whether it's a Payment, Utility, Asset, or Hybrid coin/token From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SEC_v._W._J._Howey_Co https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SEC_v._W._J._Howey_Co. : > "In other words, an investment contract for purposes of the Securities Act means a contract, transaction or scheme whereby a person invests his money in a common enterprise and is led to expect profits solely from the efforts of the promoter or a third party, it being immaterial whether the shares in the enterprise are evidenced by formal certificates or by nominal interests in the physical assets employed in the enterprise."[1] > "The test is whether the scheme involves an investment of money in a common enterprise with profits to come solely from the efforts of others. If that test be satisfied, it is immaterial whether the enterprise is speculative or non-speculative or whether there is a sale of property with or without intrinsic value."[1] Collectible coins, trading cards, beanie babies, real estate, and rare earth commodities, for example, are not securities per US securities law. Do these things fail a hypothetical and hopefully helpful "must be an agreement for future performance" litmus test for whether a thing is a security per US case law precedent? What must be fed into the FTC CAT is a different set of policies. From "Guidelines for enquiries regarding the regulatory framework for ICOs [pdf]" (2018) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16406967 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16406967 https://westurner.github.io/hnlog/#comment-16407277 https://westurner.github.io/hnlog/#comment-16407277 : > This is a helpful table indicating whether a Payment, Utility, Asset, or Hybrid coin/token: is a security, qualifies under Swiss AML payment law. > The "Minimum information requirements for ICO enquiries" appendix seems like a good set of questions for evaluating ICOs. Are there other good questions to ask when considering whether to invest in a Payment, Utility, Asset, or Hybrid ICO? > Are US regulations different from these clear and helpful regulatory guidelines for ICOs in Switzerland?
  - senttoschool 4y ago
    >Just because you can insider trade doesn't make something a security in my view. I'm not an expert on security law. All I know is that there needs to be far better regulation around crypto whether it's labeling them as securities or creating brand new regulation. It's just way too easy to scam people in crypto.
- heavyset_go 4y ago
  What blows my mind is how laissez faire regulators have been when it comes to these scams. Countless billions of dollars and thousands, if not millions, of man hours went into this scam economy. It's just such a waste of time and resources, and it flies in the face of the idea of market efficiencies. China got this right by banning cryptocurrencies. It seems like the US is happy to wallow in its own crypto scam waste while other countries are more efficient with how they allocate resources in their economies.
  - mike_d 4y ago
    > It seems like the US is happy to wallow in its own crypto scam waste while other countries are more efficient with how they allocate resources in their economies. You probably aren't from the US, but we don't have a top down rule of how resources are allocated like other countries. It is a free market, so if someone wants to waste their resources building electric cars or a search engine - they are more than welcome to do so.
    - heavyset_go 4y ago
      What happens if someone wants to manufacture and sell LSD?
      - senttoschool 4y ago
        You heard him, it's a free country. /sarcasm
      - noSyncCloud 4y ago
        Man, the crickets in here are deafening.
      - mike_d 4y ago
        Then they get to skip the step of asking the government to allocate resources for building an LSD factory. You are confusing economic policy with enforcement of laws. If the majority of people thought LSD what a good idea, they would elect people who would change that law.
- silasdavis 4y ago
  What a wonderfully content-free discussion on hacker news regarding crypto currency. Again. They're all the same. Crypto scammers. It's so tiresome. At least acknowledge the difference between ICO funds, NFTs, native tokens, inflationary or deflationary assets, liquidity pools, slush funds with voting and governance attached. Even getting some nuance on the different ways in which one thinks different crypto assets are a scam would be nice. But here I see no engagement or interest in the particular assets in question or the details of the story. Why?
  - SpicyLemonZest 4y ago
    Let's note up front that Coinbase also did not engage with the particular assets in question, instead making a blanket statement that absolutely no securities are on Coinbase (but also that nobody knows how to define a digital security in the first place?). A cynical person like myself would see this as evidence that Coinbase knows there's no story to tell about how the world is better off for having these coins listed. But going to the tweet that started this all (https://twitter.com/cobie/status/1513874972552355846 https://twitter.com/cobie/status/1513874972552355846) and spot checking the first three coins: * Indexed says that you'll "gain exposure to passively-managed crypto index portfolios represented by a single token" and references their $2.25m assets under management. * Kromatika says that they'll be selling some reserved KROM tokens on an ongoing basis in order to fund their project. * DappRadar says that, by buying their RADAR token, you will help scale their "Dapp store". The second and third are perhaps arguable, although I struggle to believe that anyone would buy their tokens except as an investment in the future of their platforms. The first is the most obvious security imaginable. This kind of thing is why I don't usually engage with the details of specific coins; at least when we're talking about exchange-listed coins, they all end up being like this.
  - rvz 4y ago
    > At least acknowledge the difference between ICO funds, NFTs, native tokens, inflationary or deflationary assets, liquidity pools, slush funds with voting and governance attached. They don't want to distinguish between any of that and instead want to blanket all of them and say that they are all the same. Not all NFTs are JPEGs and there is an obvious difference between a 'coin' vs a 'token' where those blockchains which allow tokens, you will see them have ICO launches since 2016. > Even getting some nuance on the different ways in which one thinks different crypto assets are a scam would be nice. But here I see no engagement or interest in the particular assets in question or the details of the story. Why? I think the right approach is to wait for the Ripple vs SEC case which will not only determine whether if XRP (Ripple's blockchain coin) is a security or not, but the wider implications on other coins and tokens. But as for ICOs in general, the SEC has already cracked down on unregistered ICOs in 2018, making them illegal in the US. Overall I don't think you will get a rational response on this site about anything mentioning crypto. Instead, the typical response you will get on HN is always to the extreme: 'All of crypto is scam', 'Ban it all, ban everything crypto, all of it', 'web3 should die in a fire'. It is indeed the same absolutist nonsense that doesn't add any new arguments other than spreading regurgitated garbage that is recycled from other anti-crypto supporters and repeated here.
- spaceman_2020 4y ago
  In crypto, they just call insider trading "sharing alpha". Its rampant in discords and telegram chats.
Justin_K 4y ago
Glad I pulled all my money out of Coinbase. Sounds like they could care less about protecting customers.
- crumpled 4y ago
  What sounds like that?
  - Justin_K 4y ago
    See the story about insider trading. "Former Coinbase Employee Allegedly Tipped His Brother and Friend Regarding Crypto Assets That Were Going to be Listed on Coinbase Exchanges". Coinbase lawyer is arguing that it's not a security, which if true could mean it's not insider trading. If that's the case, customers are losing protection.
    - crumpled 4y ago
      Losing protection from what?
- sytelus 4y ago
  What other exchange would you recommend that won’t go bust?
modeless 4y ago
Whether these things are securities will be the central issue of the insider trading case [1]. It will be interesting! Coinbase fired this guy for breaking Coinbase's internal insider trading rules, but now will they have to come in and help defend him in court against federal insider trading charges just to prove that they don't list securities? [1] in case you missed it https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/three-charged-first-ever-cryptocurrency-insider-trading-tipping-scheme https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/three-charged-first-eve...
- rvz 4y ago
  > Whether these things are securities will be the central issue of the insider trading case And the result of that rests on the Ripple vs SEC case for determining if XRP or any other crypto is a security of not.
DougMellon 4y ago
I imagine this is not the end of the story.
- joyfylbanana 4y ago
  Definitely not.
simonebrunozzi 4y ago
> ISHAN WAHI, a former product manager at Coinbase Global, Inc. (“Coinbase”), NIKHIL WAHI, and SAMEER RAMANI Say what you want, but I consider these three people fraudsters, even if the law doesn't exactly cover this "angle". I expected Coinbase to react like this, of course. And I hope the whole scam thing in crypto will eventually be properly regulated. I'm all for innovation in Fintech; I am not in favor of scamming millions of people just because the laws are not up to speed with it.
dang 4y ago
Related ongoing thread: Former Coinbase PM charged in cryptocurrency insider trading tipping scheme - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32180428 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32180428 - July 2022 (370 comments)
t6jvcereio 4y ago
> Earlier today, following a Department of Justice (DOJ) investigation into a former Coinbase employee’s misuse of confidential Coinbase information related to listing decisions (...) If my exchange was accused of having an employee doing something so damaging as insider trade against my customers, I would deny it if it were false, or apologize and promise corrections/reparations if it were true. Instead, Coinbase does not deny that their employee damaged their customers, but instead spend their effort in denying the legal technicality that could make them liable. I've made up my mind, Coinbase leadership are scumbags.
- mastermojo 4y ago
  I don't view it that way. I think the fact that Coinbase does not deny that their employee acted wrongly is a good thing. Their stance is that cryptocurrencies aren't securities to avoid ("unfair") SEC regulatory capture.
  - t6jvcereio 4y ago
    Good thing, what the hell does that mean? Good for what purpose? Obviously they don't deny it because it's true, that's not my point. My point is that even being true, their first concern could be their customers, but it's not because they're scumbags.
boardwaalk 4y ago
Avoiding the legal definition being fought over here for a second, putting "End of story." and "Period." in your blog post as chief legal officer is fairly unprofessional and a bit astounding when you're going up against a government agency if not entire government that could wipe you off the map. I suppose hubris and cryptocurrencies go together, but it still struck me.
- klohto 4y ago
  Huh, would you mind sharing the latest CFO professional handbooks? I definitely wouldn’t wanna overstep the all knowing government agencies by placing emphasizes in the blogpost headlines!
LatteLazy 4y ago
Most Cryptocurrencies do NOT fulfil the definition of a security because there is no underlying "thing". This is why shares (with a company underlying them) are and bonds (with debt and debtors under them) are securities (that and the fact they can be traded) but currencies are NOT. Obviously there are exceptions to that like tokenised stocks. This is also why I would not consider most crypto an investment: there is no source for a reasonable expectation of a return. In the UK, we just designate certain markets as "regulated" (stocks for instance) and others as not (eg FX). That would avoid this whole nonsense where the SEC etc have to argue that some things ARE securities and others are NOT (if bitcoin is a security then stamps definitely are, do the SEC want to regulate stamps? Or Baseball cards or cars, the examples are pretty endless...). Watching all of this makes me think regulators either being disingenuous or dumb. I doubt it's the latter. So is this someone just grabbing power for its own sake ("I can get more salary and a better office if we get to regulate crypto)? Or maybe trying to get media coverage to up their personal brand for a political career? Either way, if congress wants the SEC to do this, they should pass such a law, and if they haven't then the SEC should be careful what it sticks it's nose into not least because regulating all of Crypto would be exceedingly difficult and error prone.
- MafellUser 4y ago
  Are Forex ETFs considered regulated or unregulated, in your view?
  - LatteLazy 4y ago
    They should be considered regulated, because there is some value underlying them (the forex), plus they're traded and offered to unsophisticated investors etc. A BTC ETF could maybe be the same. Similarly shares in a farm would be regulated, but farms (or cattle :) ) would not be. Otherwise the SEC ends up regulating all known trade and/or value production...
cypress66 4y ago
Hot take here but I think crypto should be as unregulated as possible. We already have plenty of highly regulated assets. People that want those qualities already have many things to choose from. Having different options is what makes life fun. If you want safe, regulated, buy your bonds, etf and so on. If you want extremely risky investments where you have no one to blame but yourself, there's crypto. The focus should be on informing people how risky these assets are and that there is a very good chance they will go to 0. If you are fully informed of the risks then you're free to gamble your money.
- closewith 4y ago
  By definition, if someone is insider trading, it’s impossible to be fully informed of the risks.
sytelus 4y ago
So, does this gives free pass to people working in crypto exchanges to leverage any information accessible to them for profit, even if it is at the expense of customers?
fancyfredbot 4y ago
Terrible communication by coinbase but I think coinbase are actually correct and pro-customer when they say there is a lack of good legislation around digital assets. While it remains unclear whether or not these coins are covered by existing securities legislation it also remains unclear what costumers and exchanges can do with these coins. If the SEC decides all these coins are securities it will criminalise the insider trading for sure, but it will also potentially criminalise coinbase's exchange as (They aren't licensed to deal in securities AFAIK). In my own view that might be a good thing but whether this is good for customers is debatable - I'm not sure where they could go instead.

30 points by kgwgk 4y ago

Of course Coinbase will say they're not securities. All crypto should be treated as securities. The rampant insider trading, lack of transparency in project finances and decision making is insane. I've consulted for a few crypto projects. In most of them, the founders completely misused ICO funds for personal gains and traded their own tokens with inside info. If your project token is available to be purchased and sold in the US, they should be subject to the same rules other securities follow. Scamming people shouldn't be this easy.

missedthecue 4y ago
Just because you can insider trade doesn't make something a security in my view. You can do insider trading around gold or palladium or any other commodity for instance. You can do insider trading with property and land. You can even do insider trading with currencies.
- mikeyouse 4y ago
  They're not securities because you can insider trade them -- they're securities because they fairly clearly meet the Federal definition; > The term “security” means any note, stock, treasury stock, security future, security-based swap, bond, debenture, evidence of indebtedness, certificate of interest or participation in any profit-sharing agreement, collateral-trust certificate, preorganization certificate or subscription, transferable share, investment contract, voting-trust certificate, certificate of deposit for a security, fractional undivided interest in oil, gas, or other mineral rights, any put, call, straddle, option, or privilege on any security, certificate of deposit, or group or index of securities (including any interest therein or based on the value thereof), or any put, call, straddle, option, or privilege entered into on a national securities exchange relating to foreign currency, or, in general, any interest or instrument commonly known as a “security”, or any certificate of interest or participation in, temporary or interim certificate for, receipt for, guarantee of, or warrant or right to subscribe to or purchase, any of the foregoing. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/77b https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/77b
  - bpodgursky 4y ago
    Your comment has not contributed anything. Which of those many categories do you think crypto falls within? For example, foreign currency is not a security, and an intuitive stance would be that crypto is far closer to foreign currency than it is to stocks. Other sources have a more useful definition in my opinion [1]: > Firstly, a security is simply a financial instrument that represents a specific ownership position in either a corporation, a creditor related to a governmental body, a publicly traded corporation, or rights to ownership as represented by an option. The security must represent some type of financial value. Securities are generally categorised as either debts or equities, with a debt security indicating money that has been borrowed and must be repaid. Under this definition, it is hard to see how the average "boring" cryptocurrency is a security. [1] https://www.onefinancialmarkets.com/securities-vs-forex https://www.onefinancialmarkets.com/securities-vs-forex
    - dataflow 4y ago
      > The security must represent some type of financial value This is probably going to be the point of contention. There's no shortage of people wanting to argue Bitcoin really does have financial value, cures cancer, etc...
    - westurner 4y ago
      Is "must be an agreement for future performance" a fair first test of whether something is a securities contract? 1) If there is no contractual agreement for future performance, it cannot be a securities contract (a "security"). That we can test before applying 2) the Howey Test, and then 3) assessing whether it's a Payment, Utility, Asset, or Hybrid coin/token From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SEC_v._W._J._Howey_Co https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SEC_v._W._J._Howey_Co. : > "In other words, an investment contract for purposes of the Securities Act means a contract, transaction or scheme whereby a person invests his money in a common enterprise and is led to expect profits solely from the efforts of the promoter or a third party, it being immaterial whether the shares in the enterprise are evidenced by formal certificates or by nominal interests in the physical assets employed in the enterprise."[1] > "The test is whether the scheme involves an investment of money in a common enterprise with profits to come solely from the efforts of others. If that test be satisfied, it is immaterial whether the enterprise is speculative or non-speculative or whether there is a sale of property with or without intrinsic value."[1] Collectible coins, trading cards, beanie babies, real estate, and rare earth commodities, for example, are not securities per US securities law. Do these things fail a hypothetical and hopefully helpful "must be an agreement for future performance" litmus test for whether a thing is a security per US case law precedent? What must be fed into the FTC CAT is a different set of policies. From "Guidelines for enquiries regarding the regulatory framework for ICOs [pdf]" (2018) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16406967 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16406967 https://westurner.github.io/hnlog/#comment-16407277 https://westurner.github.io/hnlog/#comment-16407277 : > This is a helpful table indicating whether a Payment, Utility, Asset, or Hybrid coin/token: is a security, qualifies under Swiss AML payment law. > The "Minimum information requirements for ICO enquiries" appendix seems like a good set of questions for evaluating ICOs. Are there other good questions to ask when considering whether to invest in a Payment, Utility, Asset, or Hybrid ICO? > Are US regulations different from these clear and helpful regulatory guidelines for ICOs in Switzerland?
- senttoschool 4y ago
  >Just because you can insider trade doesn't make something a security in my view. I'm not an expert on security law. All I know is that there needs to be far better regulation around crypto whether it's labeling them as securities or creating brand new regulation. It's just way too easy to scam people in crypto.
heavyset_go 4y ago
What blows my mind is how laissez faire regulators have been when it comes to these scams. Countless billions of dollars and thousands, if not millions, of man hours went into this scam economy. It's just such a waste of time and resources, and it flies in the face of the idea of market efficiencies. China got this right by banning cryptocurrencies. It seems like the US is happy to wallow in its own crypto scam waste while other countries are more efficient with how they allocate resources in their economies.
- mike_d 4y ago
  > It seems like the US is happy to wallow in its own crypto scam waste while other countries are more efficient with how they allocate resources in their economies. You probably aren't from the US, but we don't have a top down rule of how resources are allocated like other countries. It is a free market, so if someone wants to waste their resources building electric cars or a search engine - they are more than welcome to do so.
  - heavyset_go 4y ago
    What happens if someone wants to manufacture and sell LSD?
    - senttoschool 4y ago
      You heard him, it's a free country. /sarcasm
    - noSyncCloud 4y ago
      Man, the crickets in here are deafening.
    - mike_d 4y ago
      Then they get to skip the step of asking the government to allocate resources for building an LSD factory. You are confusing economic policy with enforcement of laws. If the majority of people thought LSD what a good idea, they would elect people who would change that law.
silasdavis 4y ago
What a wonderfully content-free discussion on hacker news regarding crypto currency. Again. They're all the same. Crypto scammers. It's so tiresome. At least acknowledge the difference between ICO funds, NFTs, native tokens, inflationary or deflationary assets, liquidity pools, slush funds with voting and governance attached. Even getting some nuance on the different ways in which one thinks different crypto assets are a scam would be nice. But here I see no engagement or interest in the particular assets in question or the details of the story. Why?
- SpicyLemonZest 4y ago
  Let's note up front that Coinbase also did not engage with the particular assets in question, instead making a blanket statement that absolutely no securities are on Coinbase (but also that nobody knows how to define a digital security in the first place?). A cynical person like myself would see this as evidence that Coinbase knows there's no story to tell about how the world is better off for having these coins listed. But going to the tweet that started this all (https://twitter.com/cobie/status/1513874972552355846 https://twitter.com/cobie/status/1513874972552355846) and spot checking the first three coins: * Indexed says that you'll "gain exposure to passively-managed crypto index portfolios represented by a single token" and references their $2.25m assets under management. * Kromatika says that they'll be selling some reserved KROM tokens on an ongoing basis in order to fund their project. * DappRadar says that, by buying their RADAR token, you will help scale their "Dapp store". The second and third are perhaps arguable, although I struggle to believe that anyone would buy their tokens except as an investment in the future of their platforms. The first is the most obvious security imaginable. This kind of thing is why I don't usually engage with the details of specific coins; at least when we're talking about exchange-listed coins, they all end up being like this.
- rvz 4y ago
  > At least acknowledge the difference between ICO funds, NFTs, native tokens, inflationary or deflationary assets, liquidity pools, slush funds with voting and governance attached. They don't want to distinguish between any of that and instead want to blanket all of them and say that they are all the same. Not all NFTs are JPEGs and there is an obvious difference between a 'coin' vs a 'token' where those blockchains which allow tokens, you will see them have ICO launches since 2016. > Even getting some nuance on the different ways in which one thinks different crypto assets are a scam would be nice. But here I see no engagement or interest in the particular assets in question or the details of the story. Why? I think the right approach is to wait for the Ripple vs SEC case which will not only determine whether if XRP (Ripple's blockchain coin) is a security or not, but the wider implications on other coins and tokens. But as for ICOs in general, the SEC has already cracked down on unregistered ICOs in 2018, making them illegal in the US. Overall I don't think you will get a rational response on this site about anything mentioning crypto. Instead, the typical response you will get on HN is always to the extreme: 'All of crypto is scam', 'Ban it all, ban everything crypto, all of it', 'web3 should die in a fire'. It is indeed the same absolutist nonsense that doesn't add any new arguments other than spreading regurgitated garbage that is recycled from other anti-crypto supporters and repeated here.
spaceman_2020 4y ago
In crypto, they just call insider trading "sharing alpha". Its rampant in discords and telegram chats.

Justin_K 4y ago

Glad I pulled all my money out of Coinbase. Sounds like they could care less about protecting customers.

crumpled 4y ago
What sounds like that?
- Justin_K 4y ago
  See the story about insider trading. "Former Coinbase Employee Allegedly Tipped His Brother and Friend Regarding Crypto Assets That Were Going to be Listed on Coinbase Exchanges". Coinbase lawyer is arguing that it's not a security, which if true could mean it's not insider trading. If that's the case, customers are losing protection.
  - crumpled 4y ago
    Losing protection from what?
sytelus 4y ago
What other exchange would you recommend that won’t go bust?

modeless 4y ago

Whether these things are securities will be the central issue of the insider trading case [1]. It will be interesting! Coinbase fired this guy for breaking Coinbase's internal insider trading rules, but now will they have to come in and help defend him in court against federal insider trading charges just to prove that they don't list securities? [1] in case you missed it https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/three-charged-first-ever-cryptocurrency-insider-trading-tipping-scheme https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/three-charged-first-eve...

rvz 4y ago
> Whether these things are securities will be the central issue of the insider trading case And the result of that rests on the Ripple vs SEC case for determining if XRP or any other crypto is a security of not.

DougMellon 4y ago

I imagine this is not the end of the story.

joyfylbanana 4y ago
Definitely not.

simonebrunozzi 4y ago

> ISHAN WAHI, a former product manager at Coinbase Global, Inc. (“Coinbase”), NIKHIL WAHI, and SAMEER RAMANI Say what you want, but I consider these three people fraudsters, even if the law doesn't exactly cover this "angle". I expected Coinbase to react like this, of course. And I hope the whole scam thing in crypto will eventually be properly regulated. I'm all for innovation in Fintech; I am not in favor of scamming millions of people just because the laws are not up to speed with it.

dang 4y ago

Related ongoing thread: Former Coinbase PM charged in cryptocurrency insider trading tipping scheme - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32180428 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32180428 - July 2022 (370 comments)

t6jvcereio 4y ago

> Earlier today, following a Department of Justice (DOJ) investigation into a former Coinbase employee’s misuse of confidential Coinbase information related to listing decisions (...) If my exchange was accused of having an employee doing something so damaging as insider trade against my customers, I would deny it if it were false, or apologize and promise corrections/reparations if it were true. Instead, Coinbase does not deny that their employee damaged their customers, but instead spend their effort in denying the legal technicality that could make them liable. I've made up my mind, Coinbase leadership are scumbags.

mastermojo 4y ago
I don't view it that way. I think the fact that Coinbase does not deny that their employee acted wrongly is a good thing. Their stance is that cryptocurrencies aren't securities to avoid ("unfair") SEC regulatory capture.
- t6jvcereio 4y ago
  Good thing, what the hell does that mean? Good for what purpose? Obviously they don't deny it because it's true, that's not my point. My point is that even being true, their first concern could be their customers, but it's not because they're scumbags.

boardwaalk 4y ago

Avoiding the legal definition being fought over here for a second, putting "End of story." and "Period." in your blog post as chief legal officer is fairly unprofessional and a bit astounding when you're going up against a government agency if not entire government that could wipe you off the map. I suppose hubris and cryptocurrencies go together, but it still struck me.

klohto 4y ago
Huh, would you mind sharing the latest CFO professional handbooks? I definitely wouldn’t wanna overstep the all knowing government agencies by placing emphasizes in the blogpost headlines!

LatteLazy 4y ago

Most Cryptocurrencies do NOT fulfil the definition of a security because there is no underlying "thing". This is why shares (with a company underlying them) are and bonds (with debt and debtors under them) are securities (that and the fact they can be traded) but currencies are NOT. Obviously there are exceptions to that like tokenised stocks. This is also why I would not consider most crypto an investment: there is no source for a reasonable expectation of a return. In the UK, we just designate certain markets as "regulated" (stocks for instance) and others as not (eg FX). That would avoid this whole nonsense where the SEC etc have to argue that some things ARE securities and others are NOT (if bitcoin is a security then stamps definitely are, do the SEC want to regulate stamps? Or Baseball cards or cars, the examples are pretty endless...). Watching all of this makes me think regulators either being disingenuous or dumb. I doubt it's the latter. So is this someone just grabbing power for its own sake ("I can get more salary and a better office if we get to regulate crypto)? Or maybe trying to get media coverage to up their personal brand for a political career? Either way, if congress wants the SEC to do this, they should pass such a law, and if they haven't then the SEC should be careful what it sticks it's nose into not least because regulating all of Crypto would be exceedingly difficult and error prone.

MafellUser 4y ago
Are Forex ETFs considered regulated or unregulated, in your view?
- LatteLazy 4y ago
  They should be considered regulated, because there is some value underlying them (the forex), plus they're traded and offered to unsophisticated investors etc. A BTC ETF could maybe be the same. Similarly shares in a farm would be regulated, but farms (or cattle :) ) would not be. Otherwise the SEC ends up regulating all known trade and/or value production...

cypress66 4y ago

Hot take here but I think crypto should be as unregulated as possible. We already have plenty of highly regulated assets. People that want those qualities already have many things to choose from. Having different options is what makes life fun. If you want safe, regulated, buy your bonds, etf and so on. If you want extremely risky investments where you have no one to blame but yourself, there's crypto. The focus should be on informing people how risky these assets are and that there is a very good chance they will go to 0. If you are fully informed of the risks then you're free to gamble your money.

closewith 4y ago
By definition, if someone is insider trading, it’s impossible to be fully informed of the risks.

sytelus 4y ago

So, does this gives free pass to people working in crypto exchanges to leverage any information accessible to them for profit, even if it is at the expense of customers?

fancyfredbot 4y ago

Terrible communication by coinbase but I think coinbase are actually correct and pro-customer when they say there is a lack of good legislation around digital assets. While it remains unclear whether or not these coins are covered by existing securities legislation it also remains unclear what costumers and exchanges can do with these coins. If the SEC decides all these coins are securities it will criminalise the insider trading for sure, but it will also potentially criminalise coinbase's exchange as (They aren't licensed to deal in securities AFAIK). In my own view that might be a good thing but whether this is good for customers is debatable - I'm not sure where they could go instead.