4 ms·

From afar what appears to be going on here is that the sec did nothing for years and years then ftx blew up and sbf went to jail and within the sec there was fe

by dkrich 4y ago

From afar what appears to be going on here is that the sec did nothing for years and years then ftx blew up and sbf went to jail and within the sec there was fear that they appeared asleep at the wheel. So they oversteered and decided to drum up some complaints to look like they are taking action but in reality probably don’t fully understand the space so aren’t able to clearly articulate a case.

unicornmama 4y ago
Enforcement actions historically are cyclical, so there's nothing new here. > so aren’t able to clearly articulate a case. Coinbase's staking programs are likely in violation of securities acts of 1933 and 1934. And they most certainly strike all boxes of the Howey test.
friend_and_foe 4y ago
It's not quite even that. The SEC has an interest in setting precedent that expands its regulatory authority as much as possible. They don't want to answer the question "what is a security" clearly because they want to keep their options open. They're likely to hamstring themselves if they do that. Theyre better off doing what theyre doing, saying "99% of cryptos are securities" and being vague beyond that. It gives them regulatory authority over the whole space without restricting their available interpretations, and allows them to selectively enforce. The other side of that is, securities law is bullshit. Whether something is a security or not depends on how it's packaged. If you tell people what a security is clearly, they'll make sure to legalese the technicalities and not sell "securities." The whole concept needs to be rethought, not because of crypto, the problem has always been there, it's just becoming more obvious. As far as them falling asleep at the wheel, they've always done that. Survivorship bias aside, the SEC almost never catches actual fraudulent violations in the wild before disaster. Now, the SEC doesn't prosecute fraud, it sues for civil violations, but it's stated reason for existence is to protect the public. They've successfully done very little of that. What I think is going to happen is it's all going to blow up in their face. Theyre selectively enforcing so as to establish precedent in court favorable to their broadest interpretation of their regulatory authority, as is their prerogative. But I think theyre going to go through a cascade of failed lawsuits due to their public image as a failure and being unwilling to clarify, some of which will set precedent that neuters them in the crypto space. And that's where the securities markets are going, infrastructure wise. Theyre fucking up, and it's going to take a non polarized congress to regulate any of this stuff effectively.

by dkrich 4y ago

unicornmama 4y ago

Enforcement actions historically are cyclical, so there's nothing new here. > so aren’t able to clearly articulate a case. Coinbase's staking programs are likely in violation of securities acts of 1933 and 1934. And they most certainly strike all boxes of the Howey test.

friend_and_foe 4y ago

It's not quite even that. The SEC has an interest in setting precedent that expands its regulatory authority as much as possible. They don't want to answer the question "what is a security" clearly because they want to keep their options open. They're likely to hamstring themselves if they do that. Theyre better off doing what theyre doing, saying "99% of cryptos are securities" and being vague beyond that. It gives them regulatory authority over the whole space without restricting their available interpretations, and allows them to selectively enforce. The other side of that is, securities law is bullshit. Whether something is a security or not depends on how it's packaged. If you tell people what a security is clearly, they'll make sure to legalese the technicalities and not sell "securities." The whole concept needs to be rethought, not because of crypto, the problem has always been there, it's just becoming more obvious. As far as them falling asleep at the wheel, they've always done that. Survivorship bias aside, the SEC almost never catches actual fraudulent violations in the wild before disaster. Now, the SEC doesn't prosecute fraud, it sues for civil violations, but it's stated reason for existence is to protect the public. They've successfully done very little of that. What I think is going to happen is it's all going to blow up in their face. Theyre selectively enforcing so as to establish precedent in court favorable to their broadest interpretation of their regulatory authority, as is their prerogative. But I think theyre going to go through a cascade of failed lawsuits due to their public image as a failure and being unwilling to clarify, some of which will set precedent that neuters them in the crypto space. And that's where the securities markets are going, infrastructure wise. Theyre fucking up, and it's going to take a non polarized congress to regulate any of this stuff effectively.