5 ms·

Coinbase has asked them many times though. The article even mentions this. They met 30 times to seek clarity on the rules.

Alex3917 4y ago
This reminds me a lot of a different Armstrong repeatedly saying that he couldn’t be doping because he was the most drug-tested athlete in history. In reality, the law is perfectly clear and hasn’t changed in decades, so what would giving clarity even mean?
- mfer 4y ago
  Clarity can include explaining how some laws apply in situations relevant to Coinbase or crypto currencies. Sometimes dots need to be connected.
- latchkey 4y ago
  If the law is perfectly clear, is ETH a security or a commodity? Gensler can't even answer that question. https://twitter.com/sassal0x/status/1648338351832064003 https://twitter.com/sassal0x/status/1648338351832064003
femiagbabiaka 4y ago
Armstrong says they did, and says they met to discuss things like this. We will see what happened in reality during the course of the court case. I don't think it is wise to trust the words of any crypto actors.
- wslh 4y ago
  I don't agree with you. There are many actors in the crypto ecosystem and sadly the scammers and bad guys have, in general, better execution an exposure that the good ones. Personally I was involved in helping representatives in writing laws to move forward. If there is no guidance you can build an organization that could be destroyed arbitrarily in one day. SEC had enough time... I don't want to exaggerate but it seems like the financial establishment is really worried, and not precisely about money laundering and corruption. Those use everything as a tool, it does not matter if it is crypto or your "5 star" bank.
  - JohnFen 4y ago
    > bad guys have, in general, better execution an exposure that the good ones. So much better that I take it purely on faith that there are decent people in that space. I have to take it on faith, because I haven't actually seen or heard from any of them and so have no evidence that they exist.
    - wslh 4y ago
      I consider others and my company, good actors in the space: think about the space critically and giving transparent feedback and scenarios between the skepticism and the utopia.
      - JohnFen 4y ago
        And you may well be -- but I don't know you or your company, so I have no way of knowing. The space is generally so tainted that it's not unreasonable to assume the people in it aren't exactly good until proven otherwise.
        wslh 4y ago
        Logically speaking you are saying that there is no exist good people in the space. That is a really difficult assertion to probe. I am saying something simpler: there exist good people in the space. Then, you are saying "but I don't know you or your company, so I have no way of knowing.". Well, that is not my job, do your work if you want to change your mind. If you need help I can present you to good people but I assume you can do it by yourself. Also, again logically, saying that there is no good people in the space, we should first define good people in general. Not trying to sound pedantic but trying to show you that your assertion is about a lot of people, probably in the order or millions.
        stonogo 4y ago
        > do your work if you want to change your mind The point is that scammers are so prevalent it's not worth "doing your work." The ROI on vetting every player in a given transaction just isn't high enough to make it worth engaging. We don't have to do all this shit in the actual financial industry because of regulation and insurance. Nobody's presented a compelling reason to re-evolve those protections because blockchain. And yes, the assertion is about a lot of people. That's why we put locks on our cars and houses instead of vetting everyone in town. You keep arguing about symptoms without addressing causes.
elliekelly 4y ago
The SEC doesn’t give out legal advice.
- rekttrader 4y ago
  Exactly, there here to step in when things go bad. This is regulatory overreach.
- true_religion 4y ago
  They ought to. Giving advice is the difference between having the government work with the people, on the same side, and having it be an adversary. The goal should be legal compliance and productive companies. Not clarifying what you will or will not prosecute simply creates unnecessary fear and distrust of the system. Think of all the crime that would not be committed if only the SEC said it was criminal before hand. Maybe thousands of people wouldn’t have lost money to crypto scams if there were greater clarity.
  - VWWHFSfQ 4y ago
    SEC doesn't give legal advice because they don't make the laws. Want legal advice? Talk to a lawyer. But if your council tells you it's OK to push some boundaries then don't be surprised if you get slapped. And if you don't like getting slapped then you can go to court. Which is exactly what is happening. Seems like the system is working as intended.
    - jedberg 4y ago
      The SEC enforces the law, and it should be totally normal for them to say "this is how we plan to enforce this law". By not saying so, they create a lot of unnecessary churn. Imagine you are outside a store, and there is a police officer outside. You ask them "If I go inside and take some bread off the shelf and walk out without paying, is that ok?". Should the officer say "talk to a lawyer" or should they say "I would arrest you on the way out"? They aren't offering legal advice, they are just telling you how they will enforce the law. And heck, maybe you'll go to court and get it overturned. But at least you know what enforcement actions will be taken.

Alex3917 4y ago

This reminds me a lot of a different Armstrong repeatedly saying that he couldn’t be doping because he was the most drug-tested athlete in history. In reality, the law is perfectly clear and hasn’t changed in decades, so what would giving clarity even mean?

mfer 4y ago
Clarity can include explaining how some laws apply in situations relevant to Coinbase or crypto currencies. Sometimes dots need to be connected.
latchkey 4y ago
If the law is perfectly clear, is ETH a security or a commodity? Gensler can't even answer that question. https://twitter.com/sassal0x/status/1648338351832064003 https://twitter.com/sassal0x/status/1648338351832064003

femiagbabiaka 4y ago

Armstrong says they did, and says they met to discuss things like this. We will see what happened in reality during the course of the court case. I don't think it is wise to trust the words of any crypto actors.

wslh 4y ago
I don't agree with you. There are many actors in the crypto ecosystem and sadly the scammers and bad guys have, in general, better execution an exposure that the good ones. Personally I was involved in helping representatives in writing laws to move forward. If there is no guidance you can build an organization that could be destroyed arbitrarily in one day. SEC had enough time... I don't want to exaggerate but it seems like the financial establishment is really worried, and not precisely about money laundering and corruption. Those use everything as a tool, it does not matter if it is crypto or your "5 star" bank.
- JohnFen 4y ago
  > bad guys have, in general, better execution an exposure that the good ones. So much better that I take it purely on faith that there are decent people in that space. I have to take it on faith, because I haven't actually seen or heard from any of them and so have no evidence that they exist.
  - wslh 4y ago
    I consider others and my company, good actors in the space: think about the space critically and giving transparent feedback and scenarios between the skepticism and the utopia.
    - JohnFen 4y ago
      And you may well be -- but I don't know you or your company, so I have no way of knowing. The space is generally so tainted that it's not unreasonable to assume the people in it aren't exactly good until proven otherwise.
      - wslh 4y ago
        Logically speaking you are saying that there is no exist good people in the space. That is a really difficult assertion to probe. I am saying something simpler: there exist good people in the space. Then, you are saying "but I don't know you or your company, so I have no way of knowing.". Well, that is not my job, do your work if you want to change your mind. If you need help I can present you to good people but I assume you can do it by yourself. Also, again logically, saying that there is no good people in the space, we should first define good people in general. Not trying to sound pedantic but trying to show you that your assertion is about a lot of people, probably in the order or millions.
        stonogo 4y ago
        > do your work if you want to change your mind The point is that scammers are so prevalent it's not worth "doing your work." The ROI on vetting every player in a given transaction just isn't high enough to make it worth engaging. We don't have to do all this shit in the actual financial industry because of regulation and insurance. Nobody's presented a compelling reason to re-evolve those protections because blockchain. And yes, the assertion is about a lot of people. That's why we put locks on our cars and houses instead of vetting everyone in town. You keep arguing about symptoms without addressing causes.

elliekelly 4y ago

The SEC doesn’t give out legal advice.

rekttrader 4y ago
Exactly, there here to step in when things go bad. This is regulatory overreach.
true_religion 4y ago
They ought to. Giving advice is the difference between having the government work with the people, on the same side, and having it be an adversary. The goal should be legal compliance and productive companies. Not clarifying what you will or will not prosecute simply creates unnecessary fear and distrust of the system. Think of all the crime that would not be committed if only the SEC said it was criminal before hand. Maybe thousands of people wouldn’t have lost money to crypto scams if there were greater clarity.
- VWWHFSfQ 4y ago
  SEC doesn't give legal advice because they don't make the laws. Want legal advice? Talk to a lawyer. But if your council tells you it's OK to push some boundaries then don't be surprised if you get slapped. And if you don't like getting slapped then you can go to court. Which is exactly what is happening. Seems like the system is working as intended.
  - jedberg 4y ago
    The SEC enforces the law, and it should be totally normal for them to say "this is how we plan to enforce this law". By not saying so, they create a lot of unnecessary churn. Imagine you are outside a store, and there is a police officer outside. You ask them "If I go inside and take some bread off the shelf and walk out without paying, is that ok?". Should the officer say "talk to a lawyer" or should they say "I would arrest you on the way out"? They aren't offering legal advice, they are just telling you how they will enforce the law. And heck, maybe you'll go to court and get it overturned. But at least you know what enforcement actions will be taken.