3 ms·

I don't understand how they're different. Charles Schwab is a middleman to the company (say Exxon). Kraken is a middleman to the Blockchain. That seems like a c

by beaned 4y ago

I don't understand how they're different. Charles Schwab is a middleman to the company (say Exxon). Kraken is a middleman to the Blockchain. That seems like a clear analog, and not only that, but the code, the law of the Blockchain, is certainly more publicly available and less prone to change or failure than shareholder documents, which represent legal contracts, but are still susceptible to human error.

JumpCrisscross 4y ago
> Charles Schwab is a middleman to the company (say Exxon) Charles Schwab is a middleman to the market. Exxon separately puts out disclosures. Charles Schwab and Exxon never need interact for this to work. > Kraken is a middleman to the Blockchain Agreed. Which is why it should be regulated like Charles Schwab. The SEC isn't going that far. It's just saying if you want to take peoples' money and pay a return on it, you need to do the things others who do the same must. > the code, the law of the Blockchain, is certainly more publicly available and less prone to change or failure than shareholder documents This is a valid hypothesis. To the extent it's been tested, the opposite has been (inconclusively) true.
- beaned 4y ago
  > The SEC isn't going that far. It's just saying if you want to take peoples' money and pay a return on it, you need to do the things others who do the same must. Like what? I'm not sure I understand. They're both approved to hold things for consumers, which is already a promise to redeem upon request. Staking feels like the same thing. Is the confusion because ETH itself has not yet been explicitly ruled to be a security? > This is a valid hypothesis. To the extent it's been tested, the opposite has been (inconclusively) true Would be an interesting debate but maybe let's not go down that rabbit hole :D
  - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
    > like what? Broker-dealer regulations. Related-party transaction disclosures, audits, et cetera. > both approved to hold things for consumers, which is already a promise to redeem upon request What Kraken is and isn't approved to do is uncertain. They have a Wyoming banking license, but it's unclear what that permits with respect to staking and custody.
    - matthewdgreen 4y ago
      The actual outcome of this fine isn’t going to be that staking companies and exchanges start registering their products as securities. There’s just way too much regulatory overhead for that to make any sense. The actual outcome is that US customers will access staking through non-US exchanges and decentralized services, where they may face more risk. I think everyone involved in this decision understands that, including the SEC.

by beaned 4y ago

JumpCrisscross 4y ago

> Charles Schwab is a middleman to the company (say Exxon) Charles Schwab is a middleman to the market. Exxon separately puts out disclosures. Charles Schwab and Exxon never need interact for this to work. > Kraken is a middleman to the Blockchain Agreed. Which is why it should be regulated like Charles Schwab. The SEC isn't going that far. It's just saying if you want to take peoples' money and pay a return on it, you need to do the things others who do the same must. > the code, the law of the Blockchain, is certainly more publicly available and less prone to change or failure than shareholder documents This is a valid hypothesis. To the extent it's been tested, the opposite has been (inconclusively) true.

beaned 4y ago
> The SEC isn't going that far. It's just saying if you want to take peoples' money and pay a return on it, you need to do the things others who do the same must. Like what? I'm not sure I understand. They're both approved to hold things for consumers, which is already a promise to redeem upon request. Staking feels like the same thing. Is the confusion because ETH itself has not yet been explicitly ruled to be a security? > This is a valid hypothesis. To the extent it's been tested, the opposite has been (inconclusively) true Would be an interesting debate but maybe let's not go down that rabbit hole :D
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  > like what? Broker-dealer regulations. Related-party transaction disclosures, audits, et cetera. > both approved to hold things for consumers, which is already a promise to redeem upon request What Kraken is and isn't approved to do is uncertain. They have a Wyoming banking license, but it's unclear what that permits with respect to staking and custody.
  - matthewdgreen 4y ago
    The actual outcome of this fine isn’t going to be that staking companies and exchanges start registering their products as securities. There’s just way too much regulatory overhead for that to make any sense. The actual outcome is that US customers will access staking through non-US exchanges and decentralized services, where they may face more risk. I think everyone involved in this decision understands that, including the SEC.