13 ms·

So I guess we know which SEC commissioner is a crypto-bagholder then. If crypto offerings are not making it through the registration pipeline, perhaps its beca

by Nursie 4y ago

So I guess we know which SEC commissioner is a crypto-bagholder then. If crypto offerings are not making it through the registration pipeline, perhaps its because of the massive risks and manipulation inherent in the ecosystem, making it effectively impossible to "provide full, fair, and truthful disclosure and investor protection"

hn_throwaway_99 4y ago
> So I guess we know which SEC commissioner is a crypto-bagholder then. I've seen this kind of argument all over different forums recently, and I find it bizarre: 1. Someone posts a reasonable, logical point on a particular topic. 2. Someone else disagrees, and instead of finding fault with the argument, they make the comment "poster must just be a member of <tribe I disagree with>". To be blunt, it makes your argument incredibly weak. It makes me think you are the type of person who is so wedded to your tribalism that you can't fathom that other people can have logical thoughts that are not based on their tribal membership. I may think 99% of crypto deserves to die in a fire, but I thought this was very well-reasoned commentary by the SEC commissioner.
- Nursie 4y ago
  I have found fault with the argument, you just needed to read past the first sentence of my post. I think the fact you clearly haven’t makes your response very weak. She’s complaining that there is no real way for crypto companies to register these schemes because they don’t get through the registration pipeline. I’m positing that that’s for very good reason.
  - hn_throwaway_99 4y ago
    > I have found fault with the argument, you just needed to read past the first sentence of my post. My whole point is that you should have left that first sentence out. It immediately makes me discount your comment because it is insincere and points to you making emotional arguments that are pulled out of thin air.
  - pietjepuk88 4y ago
    But what _is_ the reason they can't get through the pipeline (and that you think is a "very good" one)? Isn't just the SEC saying "We don't feel like answering your request. Continue as you see fit, but we can't promise we won't come after you for whatever reason"?
    - Nursie 4y ago
      I shall refer you to my first post up there! > the massive risks and manipulation inherent in the ecosystem, making it effectively impossible to "provide full, fair, and truthful disclosure and investor protection" I don't know for sure, as I don't work for the SEC, but it certainly seems likely that if cryptocurrency-centered securities aren't getting through the registration process, it's likely because cryptocurrency and cryptocurrency asset prices are inherently massively unstable, subject to manipulation by unknown forces uses both fair means (large currency and cryptocurrency hodings) or foul (looking at you tether), and in general it's probably not possible to provide such a disclosure or any real evaluation of risk. And that's if the players involved are honestly attempting to do that, many/most players in the crypto space seem to be cowboys. > Isn't just the SEC saying "We don't feel like answering your request. Continue as you see fit, but we can't promise we won't come after you for whatever reason"? No. The SEC is saying that these schemes are securities, and you categorically cannot operate unregistered security schemes. The SEC is saying that these things must be registered, and until/unless they are registered they must stop. This one commissioner is then saying "But that's not fair because we don't see crypto security schemes getting through the securities registration process". I don't think she's wrong, they probably aren't getting through even if they do apply, but I also don't think the denial is wrong - it seems highly unlikely they can meet the criteria. And dear god no, we should not be carving out exceptions to the securities laws for crypto-hucksters to get easier registration status without having to meet the same bar for honesty, transparency and investor protection as 'traditional' finance schemes.
      - PretzelPirate 4y ago
        > This one commissioner is then saying "But that's not fair because we don't see crypto security schemes getting through the securities registration process". This appears to be a misrepresentation of Peirce's statement. She isn't saying that it's not fair that the SEC isn't letting these things get approved, she's claiming that the SEC isn't doing its job and isn't providing clarity on why they aren't getting approved and how they can get approved in the future. Clarity can be as simple as "we beleive that the volatility makes crypto offerings too risky", but they're instead making one-off settlements and vague statements. There have been crypto products that were held in limbo for years without clarity on why they were being rejected by the SEC, which is irresponsible on their part.

by Nursie 4y ago

hn_throwaway_99 4y ago

> So I guess we know which SEC commissioner is a crypto-bagholder then. I've seen this kind of argument all over different forums recently, and I find it bizarre: 1. Someone posts a reasonable, logical point on a particular topic. 2. Someone else disagrees, and instead of finding fault with the argument, they make the comment "poster must just be a member of <tribe I disagree with>". To be blunt, it makes your argument incredibly weak. It makes me think you are the type of person who is so wedded to your tribalism that you can't fathom that other people can have logical thoughts that are not based on their tribal membership. I may think 99% of crypto deserves to die in a fire, but I thought this was very well-reasoned commentary by the SEC commissioner.

Nursie 4y ago
I have found fault with the argument, you just needed to read past the first sentence of my post. I think the fact you clearly haven’t makes your response very weak. She’s complaining that there is no real way for crypto companies to register these schemes because they don’t get through the registration pipeline. I’m positing that that’s for very good reason.
- hn_throwaway_99 4y ago
  > I have found fault with the argument, you just needed to read past the first sentence of my post. My whole point is that you should have left that first sentence out. It immediately makes me discount your comment because it is insincere and points to you making emotional arguments that are pulled out of thin air.
- pietjepuk88 4y ago
  But what _is_ the reason they can't get through the pipeline (and that you think is a "very good" one)? Isn't just the SEC saying "We don't feel like answering your request. Continue as you see fit, but we can't promise we won't come after you for whatever reason"?
  - Nursie 4y ago
    I shall refer you to my first post up there! > the massive risks and manipulation inherent in the ecosystem, making it effectively impossible to "provide full, fair, and truthful disclosure and investor protection" I don't know for sure, as I don't work for the SEC, but it certainly seems likely that if cryptocurrency-centered securities aren't getting through the registration process, it's likely because cryptocurrency and cryptocurrency asset prices are inherently massively unstable, subject to manipulation by unknown forces uses both fair means (large currency and cryptocurrency hodings) or foul (looking at you tether), and in general it's probably not possible to provide such a disclosure or any real evaluation of risk. And that's if the players involved are honestly attempting to do that, many/most players in the crypto space seem to be cowboys. > Isn't just the SEC saying "We don't feel like answering your request. Continue as you see fit, but we can't promise we won't come after you for whatever reason"? No. The SEC is saying that these schemes are securities, and you categorically cannot operate unregistered security schemes. The SEC is saying that these things must be registered, and until/unless they are registered they must stop. This one commissioner is then saying "But that's not fair because we don't see crypto security schemes getting through the securities registration process". I don't think she's wrong, they probably aren't getting through even if they do apply, but I also don't think the denial is wrong - it seems highly unlikely they can meet the criteria. And dear god no, we should not be carving out exceptions to the securities laws for crypto-hucksters to get easier registration status without having to meet the same bar for honesty, transparency and investor protection as 'traditional' finance schemes.
    - PretzelPirate 4y ago
      > This one commissioner is then saying "But that's not fair because we don't see crypto security schemes getting through the securities registration process". This appears to be a misrepresentation of Peirce's statement. She isn't saying that it's not fair that the SEC isn't letting these things get approved, she's claiming that the SEC isn't doing its job and isn't providing clarity on why they aren't getting approved and how they can get approved in the future. Clarity can be as simple as "we beleive that the volatility makes crypto offerings too risky", but they're instead making one-off settlements and vague statements. There have been crypto products that were held in limbo for years without clarity on why they were being rejected by the SEC, which is irresponsible on their part.