3 ms·
For posterity's sake, if you insist on replying to me in two seperate threads, here is an excerpt from my reply there: ...probably moot if these "third party s
by humanizersequel 4y ago
For posterity's sake, if you insist on replying to me in two seperate threads, here is an excerpt from my reply there:
...probably moot if these "third party service providers" are just doing the busywork of interacting with the protocol, on behalf of Coinbase, on behalf of the user. I grant that this involves a kind of custody management you don't see in other non-securitized IT services, but as long as everything is spelled out clearly (which it seems to be in the excerpt you posted) I maintain my position.
- RC_ITR 4y agoYou maintain your position of what? That it's not a loan or it's not a security? Or both?
- humanizersequel 4y agoThere are no loans directly involved in the functionality of the Coinbase Earn product, and staking-as-a-service is just that: an IT service, not a security.
- RC_ITR 4y agoWe’ll time and this argument are a flat circle then. I guess my final question is: do you think there is any risk to a user of those third party service providers going under and not returning capital (either due to slashing risk or normal business risk)?
- humanizersequel 4y ago>do you think there is any risk to a user of those third party service providers going under and not returning capital (either due to slashing risk or normal business risk)? Of course, but it's more like an email provider going under and you losing your inbox than a bad mortgage (which isn't to say that it's exactly the same, because blockchain assets are practically treated as currency, but clearly doesn't map onto the traditional understanding of securitization).