3 ms·

No

• tiahura 4y ago
  Hmmm. Not my area of practice, but didn’t the Supreme Court just hold in June that federal agencies don’t get to use vague statutory language to start regulating new domains? I thought the holding in West Virginia v EPA was that there must be “clear congressional authorization.” Do you have a cite for the SEC’s “clear congressional authorization” to regulate crypto?
  • oneoff786 4y ago
    This is an annoying post to me. You don’t understand it, but here’s your understanding, and now you’re asking for a cited source that answers the question in your particular framework? Are you asking a question or are you trying to argue a point With plausible deniability of intent to make it seem like you’re seeking knowledge from an unbiased neutral position? Do you have a citation that the inclusion of crypto qualifies to make this a novel domain outside the SEC’s authority per the norms of things like marketing of securities? Can I dodge the SEC’s authority if I market my new security which is created by my new PonziSplooks technology? No, I cannot.
    • tiahura 4y ago
      It is an open question. Anyone telling you it isn’t is either misinformed or has an agenda. The SC just told the EPA they can’t regulate CO2 emissions because that authority isn’t clearly in the Clean Air Act. If you’re arguing that the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 provide “clear congressional authority” to regulate bitcoin, you should write a law review article.
      • oneoff786 4y ago
        You asked if it was an open question, stated it was not your area of expertise, and are now telling me I’m uninformed unless I agree with you. Bitcoin is a security. Being crypto doesn’t make it magically different