5 ms·

Obviously this is very different from saying "They chose to illegally run a business in the US."

hef19898 4y ago
Binance provided illegal services to US citizens living in the US. In the non-crypto world, providing services in a country usually requires setting up a legal entity in said country. Not doing so doesn't change the fact of providing services in said country, quite the opposite, it might even amount to tax fraud.
- holmesworcester 4y ago
  > In the non-crypto world, providing services in a country usually requires setting up a legal entity in said country. For this statement to be true, you have to modify it to "in a pre-Internet world" or "providing financial services." Hacker News is providing an information and communication service in almost 200 countries where it has not set up a legal entity. You can say financial services are special, and the US does. Some countries like China say that information services are special, that people shouldn't be allowed to criticize the CCP, and enforce that however they have the power to. But the world would be demonstrably worse if we said "every website in the world that is accessible to Chinese citizens living in China should follow CCP censorship laws." Maybe the world is also worse off for the US's assertion that financial services are a special kind of website that the US can regulate globally simply because some Americans visit them. At the very least, the rest of the world should have some say on a policy that affects what kind of online businesses they can run. But of course there's no mechanism for them to, since only US citizens can direct US policy. Also, think about how impossible it would be to run a website if all countries enforced their local laws on all websites, simply because some of their citizens use foreign websites. The US is doing something that it would be unworkable for all countries to do, simply because it's the most powerful country. That alone should be a hint that it's a morally and politically questionable and based on raw power, not fairness; a fair policy would universalize better across countries.
  - boeingUH60 4y ago
    > You can say financial services are special, and the US does. Some countries like China say that information services are special, that people shouldn't be allowed to criticize the CCP, and enforce that however they have the power to. Fairness isn't the concern here. It's just a display of power and law enforcement reach. The Chinese government can (and likely will) block your website if it's criticizing the CCP and gets considerably popular, regardless of the morality of that action. The same applies to the U.S. government. "To sell derivatives trading products to our citizens, you must register with us first". I consider the American law even fair because derivatives products are risky and a major avenue for scamming people...only licensed firms should offer them. Note that Binance wasn't banned from selling derivatives products. All that was required was a simple registration with the CFTC, which they refused.

hef19898 4y ago

Binance provided illegal services to US citizens living in the US. In the non-crypto world, providing services in a country usually requires setting up a legal entity in said country. Not doing so doesn't change the fact of providing services in said country, quite the opposite, it might even amount to tax fraud.

holmesworcester 4y ago
> In the non-crypto world, providing services in a country usually requires setting up a legal entity in said country. For this statement to be true, you have to modify it to "in a pre-Internet world" or "providing financial services." Hacker News is providing an information and communication service in almost 200 countries where it has not set up a legal entity. You can say financial services are special, and the US does. Some countries like China say that information services are special, that people shouldn't be allowed to criticize the CCP, and enforce that however they have the power to. But the world would be demonstrably worse if we said "every website in the world that is accessible to Chinese citizens living in China should follow CCP censorship laws." Maybe the world is also worse off for the US's assertion that financial services are a special kind of website that the US can regulate globally simply because some Americans visit them. At the very least, the rest of the world should have some say on a policy that affects what kind of online businesses they can run. But of course there's no mechanism for them to, since only US citizens can direct US policy. Also, think about how impossible it would be to run a website if all countries enforced their local laws on all websites, simply because some of their citizens use foreign websites. The US is doing something that it would be unworkable for all countries to do, simply because it's the most powerful country. That alone should be a hint that it's a morally and politically questionable and based on raw power, not fairness; a fair policy would universalize better across countries.
- boeingUH60 4y ago
  > You can say financial services are special, and the US does. Some countries like China say that information services are special, that people shouldn't be allowed to criticize the CCP, and enforce that however they have the power to. Fairness isn't the concern here. It's just a display of power and law enforcement reach. The Chinese government can (and likely will) block your website if it's criticizing the CCP and gets considerably popular, regardless of the morality of that action. The same applies to the U.S. government. "To sell derivatives trading products to our citizens, you must register with us first". I consider the American law even fair because derivatives products are risky and a major avenue for scamming people...only licensed firms should offer them. Note that Binance wasn't banned from selling derivatives products. All that was required was a simple registration with the CFTC, which they refused.