5 ms·

Well, it is something of a he said/she said between Coinbase and the SEC. But the Judge in the Voyager bankruptcy case had similar concerns about the clarity pr

Well, it is something of a he said/she said between Coinbase and the SEC. But the Judge in the Voyager bankruptcy case had similar concerns about the clarity provided by the SEC - https://twitter.com/BillHughesDC/status/1636069735006699523 https://twitter.com/BillHughesDC/status/1636069735006699523

Alex3917 4y ago
> Well, it is something of a he said/she said between Coinbase and the SEC. Not really. The law has been exactly the same since the 1940s. Apparently though Coinbase has decided to go all in on SBF's strategy of pretending to be too dumb to understand the law. Coinbase arguing that they should be allowed to sell illegal unregistered securities because the SEC said they could sell securities is like CVS arguing that should be allowed to sell cocaine because the government told them they could be a drug store.
- cududa 4y ago
  Or Nasdaq claiming that moving orders from paper ledgers to computers means they’re no longer a securities exchange. Because reasons.
  - TylerE 4y ago
    Reminder: One of the founders, and longtime chairman of the NASDAQ was one Bernie L. Madoff.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - beambot 4y ago
      I remember that guy -- he's the one who also pioneered PFOF (pay for order flow).
- iramiller 4y ago
  Well the SEC certainly has one point of view. Unfortunately the CFTC has another view and they both can’t be right so which part of the federal governance applies here? https://www.cftc.gov/digitalassets/index.htm https://www.cftc.gov/digitalassets/index.htm This ambiguity is why clarity is needed. In the famous words of Matt Levine everything is securities fraud. It seems obvious that some legal clarity is actually required here.
  - Alex3917 4y ago
    > Unfortunately the CFTC has another view and they both can’t be right Of course they can. Whether something is a commodity has absolutely nothing to do with whether something is a security. They are completely orthogonal concepts.
    - HWR_14 4y ago
      Wait, what? I thought a commodity was corn and a security was stock and everything in this discussion was about arguing which it was closer to. What is a commodity then?
      - trompetenaccoun 4y ago
        The above is obviously false. This is why you should not learn about finance and economics on HN, many users have no idea what they write. Something is either a security or a commodity, these are legal terms and treated differently by law. The status may be undermined but it can not be both.
  - choma1 4y ago
    Why can't they both be right? Futures aren't securities except in certain cases, and if bitcoin is a currency then bitcoin futures wouldn't be under SEC jurisdiction.
    - junofan 4y ago
      “Commodity” is shorthand for “non-security commodity” in CFTC-speak.
- EFreethought 4y ago
  I thought SBF's strategy was that everybody other than him is too dumb to understand the law.
- harold_b 4y ago
  [dead]

Alex3917 4y ago

> Well, it is something of a he said/she said between Coinbase and the SEC. Not really. The law has been exactly the same since the 1940s. Apparently though Coinbase has decided to go all in on SBF's strategy of pretending to be too dumb to understand the law. Coinbase arguing that they should be allowed to sell illegal unregistered securities because the SEC said they could sell securities is like CVS arguing that should be allowed to sell cocaine because the government told them they could be a drug store.

cududa 4y ago
Or Nasdaq claiming that moving orders from paper ledgers to computers means they’re no longer a securities exchange. Because reasons.
- TylerE 4y ago
  Reminder: One of the founders, and longtime chairman of the NASDAQ was one Bernie L. Madoff.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - beambot 4y ago
    I remember that guy -- he's the one who also pioneered PFOF (pay for order flow).
iramiller 4y ago
Well the SEC certainly has one point of view. Unfortunately the CFTC has another view and they both can’t be right so which part of the federal governance applies here? https://www.cftc.gov/digitalassets/index.htm https://www.cftc.gov/digitalassets/index.htm This ambiguity is why clarity is needed. In the famous words of Matt Levine everything is securities fraud. It seems obvious that some legal clarity is actually required here.
- Alex3917 4y ago
  > Unfortunately the CFTC has another view and they both can’t be right Of course they can. Whether something is a commodity has absolutely nothing to do with whether something is a security. They are completely orthogonal concepts.
  - HWR_14 4y ago
    Wait, what? I thought a commodity was corn and a security was stock and everything in this discussion was about arguing which it was closer to. What is a commodity then?
    - trompetenaccoun 4y ago
      The above is obviously false. This is why you should not learn about finance and economics on HN, many users have no idea what they write. Something is either a security or a commodity, these are legal terms and treated differently by law. The status may be undermined but it can not be both.
- choma1 4y ago
  Why can't they both be right? Futures aren't securities except in certain cases, and if bitcoin is a currency then bitcoin futures wouldn't be under SEC jurisdiction.
  - junofan 4y ago
    “Commodity” is shorthand for “non-security commodity” in CFTC-speak.
EFreethought 4y ago
I thought SBF's strategy was that everybody other than him is too dumb to understand the law.
harold_b 4y ago
[dead]