4 ms·

The word property encompasses more than just what sales tax laws apply to, no? For example, I'd consider an old-school physical stock certificate a kind of prop

The word property encompasses more than just what sales tax laws apply to, no? For example, I'd consider an old-school physical stock certificate a kind of property, and subject to theft laws but not sales tax. As far as classifying it more specifically, I don't have strong opinions. Gensler says BTC is a commodity and ETH is a security--that sounds fine to me, ship it. I'll let the regulators regulate. I'm just pushing back against this idea that private sector money must exist outside of the law and outside of the justice system—because the anarchy approach is clearly absurd.

knorker 3y ago
> The word property encompasses more than just what sales tax laws apply to, no? For example, I'd consider an old-school physical stock certificate a kind of property, and subject to theft laws but not sales tax. Sure, but then you're either saying that cryptocurrencies are securities (not commodities), and to be regulated as such, or you want to harmonize laws on commodities and securities. So your analogy with jeans is not very clear to me. Cryptocurrency (a security?) is just like jeans (a commodity)? > I'm just pushing back against this idea that private sector money must exist outside of the law and outside of the justice system—because the anarchy approach is clearly absurd. I entirely agree with this. But like I said cryptocurrencies try to play a language game to avoid being classified as anything that's currently regulated, in order to be as unregulated as possible. E.g. the reason people use bitcoin instead of western union to send money (to the extent that they do) boils down to the laws that exist to prevent, investigate, and "reverse" crimes. The laws were written such that they can be enforced by the (needed) middleman. Bitcoin doesn't (for this transaction) require a middleman, so the law, the implementation of the intention, doesn't fit well. But people who call this "savings" are ignoring why the law exists. There was never an intention to punish or burden western union. It was an intention to safeguard (or track, or whatever) the movement of money. …or commodities, or securities, or whatever a given cryptocurrency should be classified as. I agree that theft is theft. But movement of financial instruments and commodities is also already covered by the law. In some countries your primary home is exempt from capital gains (or taxed lower than capital gains). But that doesn't mean that you can take your physical stock certificates, stack them in the form of a shed, sell it, and thus avoid capital gains. Yet this is basically what cryptocurrencies try to do, all while saying that they're "more efficient". It's not, it's just word games.
- overthrow 3y ago
  You're pushing the jeans analogy a little further than I intended. Every analogy has its limits. Is it a security? A commodity? I don't know! But neither does the US government. The CFTC and SEC are fighting a turf war. The CFTC calls them commodities. The SEC calls (most of) them securities. The IRS has created a brand new category called "digital assets". Who is right? If the government can't tell you, I sure can't. I can infer there must be some legal justification for the current treatment. Even if you think Coinbase is playing fast and loose with the law, the old school players like Fidelity also don't charge sales tax on bitcoin, and I guarantee you they're not going to risk their core business over crypto. I am curious now how their lawyers would answer some of your questions. Anyways it's been an interesting conversation, thanks for sticking around after the thread died. You've given me some stuff to think about.

knorker 3y ago

> The word property encompasses more than just what sales tax laws apply to, no? For example, I'd consider an old-school physical stock certificate a kind of property, and subject to theft laws but not sales tax. Sure, but then you're either saying that cryptocurrencies are securities (not commodities), and to be regulated as such, or you want to harmonize laws on commodities and securities. So your analogy with jeans is not very clear to me. Cryptocurrency (a security?) is just like jeans (a commodity)? > I'm just pushing back against this idea that private sector money must exist outside of the law and outside of the justice system—because the anarchy approach is clearly absurd. I entirely agree with this. But like I said cryptocurrencies try to play a language game to avoid being classified as anything that's currently regulated, in order to be as unregulated as possible. E.g. the reason people use bitcoin instead of western union to send money (to the extent that they do) boils down to the laws that exist to prevent, investigate, and "reverse" crimes. The laws were written such that they can be enforced by the (needed) middleman. Bitcoin doesn't (for this transaction) require a middleman, so the law, the implementation of the intention, doesn't fit well. But people who call this "savings" are ignoring why the law exists. There was never an intention to punish or burden western union. It was an intention to safeguard (or track, or whatever) the movement of money. …or commodities, or securities, or whatever a given cryptocurrency should be classified as. I agree that theft is theft. But movement of financial instruments and commodities is also already covered by the law. In some countries your primary home is exempt from capital gains (or taxed lower than capital gains). But that doesn't mean that you can take your physical stock certificates, stack them in the form of a shed, sell it, and thus avoid capital gains. Yet this is basically what cryptocurrencies try to do, all while saying that they're "more efficient". It's not, it's just word games.

overthrow 3y ago
You're pushing the jeans analogy a little further than I intended. Every analogy has its limits. Is it a security? A commodity? I don't know! But neither does the US government. The CFTC and SEC are fighting a turf war. The CFTC calls them commodities. The SEC calls (most of) them securities. The IRS has created a brand new category called "digital assets". Who is right? If the government can't tell you, I sure can't. I can infer there must be some legal justification for the current treatment. Even if you think Coinbase is playing fast and loose with the law, the old school players like Fidelity also don't charge sales tax on bitcoin, and I guarantee you they're not going to risk their core business over crypto. I am curious now how their lawyers would answer some of your questions. Anyways it's been an interesting conversation, thanks for sticking around after the thread died. You've given me some stuff to think about.