5 ms·

It's really bad. In the press, he says that "actors are not complying" but not being able to answer the most simple question (there are others more complex) is

by hbbio 3y ago

It's really bad. In the press, he says that "actors are not complying" but not being able to answer the most simple question (there are others more complex) is *not* playing in SEC favour. Comply with what? Ethereum is the most used "crypto"-currency and the ecosystem players like Coinbase (a YC company) are right by saying they *can't* comply... they don't know what they are supposed to do despite asking repeatedly for years.

duxup 3y ago
You didn’t answer my other question.
- latchkey 3y ago
  "the rules are clear" "great! how would they apply to this simple example?" "lol, no I can't tell you that!"
  - thisgoesnowhere 3y ago
    That's not how regulation works with the SEC. The rules are broad and are specificly designed to not be strict so that they can be applied to new technologies and businesses. You can say you don't like these rules or how they are applied but that's how they have been applied since their inception. This isn't new.
    - latchkey 3y ago
      Sadly, the existing rules are clearly not being applied well to these "new" (10+ year old) technologies. After, whatever decades of "the rules", new technologies have come along that have stumped "the rules". Now, the SEC has to deal with that. Instead of being an adult and having a good conversation, they are just kicking and screaming. What's happening is that SEC is saying that you're breaking "the rules" (ie: Wells Notice to coinbase). So, coinbase says... "ok, cool... what rules am i breaking?" The response is: "lol, no I can't tell you that!" So now Brian is in DC this week talking to regulators trying to get some clarity. He's posting all sorts of pictures of this on Twitter. Let's see what happens.
      - growse 3y ago
        The response to the wells notice is meant to be an argument as to why you're not in breach of the law. Not a request for more information. If they're not able to argue why they're not breaking the law, then they should hire better lawyers.
        latchkey 3y ago
        Comments like this and your second one below, seem so low brow and childish. Account from 2011 and 1400 karma... keep up the good work there. Of course they can argue it, that's what is happening. They are going to sue the government. Why? Because the SEC refuses to even have a conversation about things. They've been trying, for years, to do so. This isn't some random small company, this is a public company that the SEC should be supporting with better answers than just refusing to even meet. Worse off, along this same thread, Gensler doesn't even have basic answers to questions that he was prepared for.
        growse 3y ago
        You appear to be very confused about the role the SEC plays in the industry. They're not a friendly, supportive legal advice service, they're law enforcement. In any case, even if the SEC did give out legal advice, I don't believe it would form any type of legal precedent. Nothing stops the next administration from taking a different view. If you're a large public company knowingly entering into a regulated industry where your activities are considered by everyone to be a "a bit of a legally grey area", then litigation is the entire ball game. Do the thing, wait to get prosecuted, hope you win. Alternatively, do some lobbying, get the law changed how you want, then do the activity. Been happening for centuries. Easy as pie.
        latchkey 3y ago
        > they're law enforcement According to their own site, they aren't that at all. https://www.investor.gov/introduction-investing/investing-basics/role-sec https://www.investor.gov/introduction-investing/investing-ba... The U. S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has a three-part mission: Protect investors. Maintain fair, orderly, and efficient markets. Facilitate capital formation. The main purposes of these laws can be reduced to two common-sense notions: Companies offering securities for sale to the public must tell the truth about their business, the securities they are selling, and the risks involved in investing in those securities. Those who sell and trade securities – brokers, dealers, and exchanges – must treat investors fairly and honestly. Given that Gensler can't even say whether or not ETH is a security, it seems questionable whether the SEC even has a role here in the discussion.
  - growse 3y ago
    The regulators aren't obligated to tell you how to stay out of trouble.
    - latchkey 3y ago
      Gensler knows what trouble is and isn’t. https://twitter.com/zk_shark/status/1650689125580668931 https://twitter.com/zk_shark/status/1650689125580668931
- ghayes 3y ago
  Yes, it’s very bad, as if you’re a US company, how do you comply if one government agency tells you one thing, and another tells you the opposite. Rule of law fundamentally requires a shared understanding of the law.
  - duxup 3y ago
    Did you ask a government agency? This whole congressional testimony as legal advice for your business makes no sense.
re-thc 3y ago
> Comply with what? Comply by not operating at all probably. Just the SEC can't outright say that.
- dontknowwhyihn 3y ago
  The SEC could have prevented Coinbase from becoming a publicly traded company, but they didn’t.
  - thisgoesnowhere 3y ago
    What are you suggesting here? Are you saying that because they said coinbase could list that means that crypto is compliant?

by hbbio 3y ago

duxup 3y ago

You didn’t answer my other question.

latchkey 3y ago
"the rules are clear" "great! how would they apply to this simple example?" "lol, no I can't tell you that!"
- thisgoesnowhere 3y ago
  That's not how regulation works with the SEC. The rules are broad and are specificly designed to not be strict so that they can be applied to new technologies and businesses. You can say you don't like these rules or how they are applied but that's how they have been applied since their inception. This isn't new.
  - latchkey 3y ago
    Sadly, the existing rules are clearly not being applied well to these "new" (10+ year old) technologies. After, whatever decades of "the rules", new technologies have come along that have stumped "the rules". Now, the SEC has to deal with that. Instead of being an adult and having a good conversation, they are just kicking and screaming. What's happening is that SEC is saying that you're breaking "the rules" (ie: Wells Notice to coinbase). So, coinbase says... "ok, cool... what rules am i breaking?" The response is: "lol, no I can't tell you that!" So now Brian is in DC this week talking to regulators trying to get some clarity. He's posting all sorts of pictures of this on Twitter. Let's see what happens.
    - growse 3y ago
      The response to the wells notice is meant to be an argument as to why you're not in breach of the law. Not a request for more information. If they're not able to argue why they're not breaking the law, then they should hire better lawyers.
      - latchkey 3y ago
        Comments like this and your second one below, seem so low brow and childish. Account from 2011 and 1400 karma... keep up the good work there. Of course they can argue it, that's what is happening. They are going to sue the government. Why? Because the SEC refuses to even have a conversation about things. They've been trying, for years, to do so. This isn't some random small company, this is a public company that the SEC should be supporting with better answers than just refusing to even meet. Worse off, along this same thread, Gensler doesn't even have basic answers to questions that he was prepared for.
        growse 3y ago
        You appear to be very confused about the role the SEC plays in the industry. They're not a friendly, supportive legal advice service, they're law enforcement. In any case, even if the SEC did give out legal advice, I don't believe it would form any type of legal precedent. Nothing stops the next administration from taking a different view. If you're a large public company knowingly entering into a regulated industry where your activities are considered by everyone to be a "a bit of a legally grey area", then litigation is the entire ball game. Do the thing, wait to get prosecuted, hope you win. Alternatively, do some lobbying, get the law changed how you want, then do the activity. Been happening for centuries. Easy as pie.
        latchkey 3y ago
        > they're law enforcement According to their own site, they aren't that at all. https://www.investor.gov/introduction-investing/investing-basics/role-sec https://www.investor.gov/introduction-investing/investing-ba... The U. S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has a three-part mission: Protect investors. Maintain fair, orderly, and efficient markets. Facilitate capital formation. The main purposes of these laws can be reduced to two common-sense notions: Companies offering securities for sale to the public must tell the truth about their business, the securities they are selling, and the risks involved in investing in those securities. Those who sell and trade securities – brokers, dealers, and exchanges – must treat investors fairly and honestly. Given that Gensler can't even say whether or not ETH is a security, it seems questionable whether the SEC even has a role here in the discussion.
- growse 3y ago
  The regulators aren't obligated to tell you how to stay out of trouble.
  - latchkey 3y ago
    Gensler knows what trouble is and isn’t. https://twitter.com/zk_shark/status/1650689125580668931 https://twitter.com/zk_shark/status/1650689125580668931
ghayes 3y ago
Yes, it’s very bad, as if you’re a US company, how do you comply if one government agency tells you one thing, and another tells you the opposite. Rule of law fundamentally requires a shared understanding of the law.
- duxup 3y ago
  Did you ask a government agency? This whole congressional testimony as legal advice for your business makes no sense.

re-thc 3y ago

> Comply with what? Comply by not operating at all probably. Just the SEC can't outright say that.

dontknowwhyihn 3y ago
The SEC could have prevented Coinbase from becoming a publicly traded company, but they didn’t.
- thisgoesnowhere 3y ago
  What are you suggesting here? Are you saying that because they said coinbase could list that means that crypto is compliant?