5 ms·

Not so much protecting you, but ensuring a fair playing ground. If crypto is "finance", then it has to be subject to financial regulations.

by lottin 4y ago

ETH_start 4y ago
There is no such law. Pokemon is no different than a digital token with respect to the applicability of securities law, the SEC's inconsistent treatment of the respective assets notwithstanding. And your argument begs the question of why any restrictions should be placed on people buying/selling financial products to regiment how they do it.
- libraryatnight 4y ago
  If you think any of this is analogous to a pokemon card or people collecting pokemon cards, your understanding of what is going on right now is pretty much useless.
  - ETH_start 4y ago
    They're identical in terms of all legal tests for an asset being a security, your insults notwithstanding. And if you contend otherwise, it would be constructive that you articulate why instead of engaging in more low-brow sophistry.
    - libraryatnight 4y ago
      again, they're not - i don't know which youtuber told you that, but you need to go back and re-think. It's not a personal insult to tell someone they're confused. You're confused. There isn't a generous interpretation on the planet that makes your analogy useful.
- soco 4y ago
  Maybe if we compared the market size of the Pokemon cards trading with the crypto trading, and also the risks of one compared to the other, we might get a hint why one is in the spotlights while the other not. Not all problems can and have to be addressed at once, so having a priority list to apply your limited resources makes only sense.
  - ETH_start 4y ago
    If the SEC began interpreting securities laws as designating Pokemon card, wine and luxury watches securities, Congress would change securities laws. And that's why they don't. They're exploiting the novelty of cryptocurrency to give it this designation without a broad backlash. As a matter of law though, the case for being a security is no stronger cryptocurrencies than for Pokemon cards.
    - skywhopper 4y ago
      You realize that the “securities” at issue here aren’t just ETH and Bitcoin, right? They are packaged financial instruments. “Stake this crypto and we’ll pay you a fixed rate of return.” That’s a bond, or a bank account. Either way, Coinbase isn’t following the rules. https://www.coinbase.com/earn https://www.coinbase.com/earn
detrites 4y ago
The definition of what "finance" is seems somewhat arbitrary doesn't it? Person A: spends $1k per year on lottery tickets and doesn't win anything. Person B: puts $1k into BTC at the years high and sells at the bottom getting back $200. Both people had the goal of making a double percentage return. One had an arguably significantly higher chance of doing that. One person was able to buy their lottery tickets at the corner store in cash, no questions asked. The other had to file a ream of identity documents, sign an investment statement and keep constant watch on "regulations", tax obligations and even in some cases the base legality. And then Person C comes along, and over the course of the same year sinks $1k into a bunch of clothes they never wear and eventually throws away and nobody bats an eye. When it comes to "finance", whose money is it, really?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- skywhopper 4y ago
  You’re just making things up now. Person B doesn’t have to “file a ream of identify documents” or keep watch on regulations to put $1k into Bitcoin. As for taxes, you owe them on lottery winnings as well. And for any non trivial amount, you will pay them.
  - detrites 4y ago
    Which of the worlds various hundreds of disparate tax obligation and financial regulation jurisdictions are you referring to? Or have you "made up" there's just one and its yours?
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
- SilverBirch 4y ago
  If you're going to attack the regulations, at least address what the regulations are there for. The regulations are very very simple, it provides a baseline to ensure that people understand what they're investing in. That's it! That's what the regulation is there for. When someone buys clothes or a lottery ticket they know exactly what they're getting - and lotteries are regulated to ensure they operate the way people expect them to, there's laws surrounding selling counterfeit clothes. That's all this is. Ensuring people know what they're buying. And it's for good reason, generally it's difficult to even get experts in crypto to agree on the properties of a particular product, so misunderstanding what crypto does it a very valid concern.

Not so much protecting you, but ensuring a fair playing ground. If crypto is "finance", then it has to be subject to financial regulations.

by lottin 4y ago

Not so much protecting you, but ensuring a fair playing ground. If crypto is "finance", then it has to be subject to financial regulations.

ETH_start 4y ago

There is no such law. Pokemon is no different than a digital token with respect to the applicability of securities law, the SEC's inconsistent treatment of the respective assets notwithstanding. And your argument begs the question of why any restrictions should be placed on people buying/selling financial products to regiment how they do it.

libraryatnight 4y ago
If you think any of this is analogous to a pokemon card or people collecting pokemon cards, your understanding of what is going on right now is pretty much useless.
- ETH_start 4y ago
  They're identical in terms of all legal tests for an asset being a security, your insults notwithstanding. And if you contend otherwise, it would be constructive that you articulate why instead of engaging in more low-brow sophistry.
  - libraryatnight 4y ago
    again, they're not - i don't know which youtuber told you that, but you need to go back and re-think. It's not a personal insult to tell someone they're confused. You're confused. There isn't a generous interpretation on the planet that makes your analogy useful.
soco 4y ago
Maybe if we compared the market size of the Pokemon cards trading with the crypto trading, and also the risks of one compared to the other, we might get a hint why one is in the spotlights while the other not. Not all problems can and have to be addressed at once, so having a priority list to apply your limited resources makes only sense.
- ETH_start 4y ago
  If the SEC began interpreting securities laws as designating Pokemon card, wine and luxury watches securities, Congress would change securities laws. And that's why they don't. They're exploiting the novelty of cryptocurrency to give it this designation without a broad backlash. As a matter of law though, the case for being a security is no stronger cryptocurrencies than for Pokemon cards.
  - skywhopper 4y ago
    You realize that the “securities” at issue here aren’t just ETH and Bitcoin, right? They are packaged financial instruments. “Stake this crypto and we’ll pay you a fixed rate of return.” That’s a bond, or a bank account. Either way, Coinbase isn’t following the rules. https://www.coinbase.com/earn https://www.coinbase.com/earn

detrites 4y ago

The definition of what "finance" is seems somewhat arbitrary doesn't it? Person A: spends $1k per year on lottery tickets and doesn't win anything. Person B: puts $1k into BTC at the years high and sells at the bottom getting back $200. Both people had the goal of making a double percentage return. One had an arguably significantly higher chance of doing that. One person was able to buy their lottery tickets at the corner store in cash, no questions asked. The other had to file a ream of identity documents, sign an investment statement and keep constant watch on "regulations", tax obligations and even in some cases the base legality. And then Person C comes along, and over the course of the same year sinks $1k into a bunch of clothes they never wear and eventually throws away and nobody bats an eye. When it comes to "finance", whose money is it, really?

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
skywhopper 4y ago
You’re just making things up now. Person B doesn’t have to “file a ream of identify documents” or keep watch on regulations to put $1k into Bitcoin. As for taxes, you owe them on lottery winnings as well. And for any non trivial amount, you will pay them.
- detrites 4y ago
  Which of the worlds various hundreds of disparate tax obligation and financial regulation jurisdictions are you referring to? Or have you "made up" there's just one and its yours?
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
SilverBirch 4y ago
If you're going to attack the regulations, at least address what the regulations are there for. The regulations are very very simple, it provides a baseline to ensure that people understand what they're investing in. That's it! That's what the regulation is there for. When someone buys clothes or a lottery ticket they know exactly what they're getting - and lotteries are regulated to ensure they operate the way people expect them to, there's laws surrounding selling counterfeit clothes. That's all this is. Ensuring people know what they're buying. And it's for good reason, generally it's difficult to even get experts in crypto to agree on the properties of a particular product, so misunderstanding what crypto does it a very valid concern.