5 ms·
Yeah, he really doth protest too much. Regardless of how you feel about crypto, if you're at all familiar with law you'd understand that we're simply in unchar
by jrm4 4y ago
Yeah, he really doth protest too much.
Regardless of how you feel about crypto, if you're at all familiar with law you'd understand that we're simply in uncharted territory here; saying that crypto is super dirty and non-compliant is quite literally as inaccurate as saying that it's super clean and fully in-line. The law simply isn't there yet.
- iudqnolq 4y agoThe law isn't there yet if you want crypto to work. But Gensler wants to kill crypto, and for that simply applying the existing rules fairly will do. Crypto doesn't have an inherent right to have the laws rewritten to enable it, it needs to make the case for why that would be good for the public. So far it hasn't.
- csomar 4y agoCrypto as in crypto-currencies is simply two (or multiple) peers exchanging information between them. They do not need a law to permit that, a case for the "good for the public", or anyone authorization for that matter.
- ufo 4y agoBy that logic, most financial crimes are just people signing and exchanging pieces of paper.
- iudqnolq 4y agoThe way the law works is often by banning based on intent and meaning and content. Exchanging information is too general: the law looks at what information, by whom, for what purpose. Nearly every white collar crime fundamentally involves some sort of unauthorized communication. (Insider trading, for example, involves receiving information by virtue of a trusted position and then communication information to a broker which causes them to execute trades on your behalf). We can even get beyond white collar: hiring a hitman is obviously illegal even if it involves. communication. I'm not saying (in this comment) crypto is necessarily bad. I am saying you need to defend it on the merits; it's just info so it's ok isn't how anything in society works.
- jrm4 4y agoBut no; we're a default "freedom" kind of place. You don't get to summarily declare crypto verboten and make crypto prove it's okay -- the burden is on crypto's detractors to show specifically why it's bad.
- polygamous_bat 4y agoOne word: FTX.
- jrm4 4y agoNo, like a lawyer or policy maker would.
- yellowapple 4y agoOne word: https://www.fdic.gov/resources/resolutions/bank-failures/failed-bank-list/ https://www.fdic.gov/resources/resolutions/bank-failures/fai... (You can pick which word)
- polygamous_bat 4y agoLooks like a lot more than a word to me. Also, do you respond to car crashes by saying we should get rid of speed limits and drunk driving laws?
- flangola7 4y agoThey're not just exchanging information they're exchanging something that, by their very own account, has financial value. We as society figured out long ago through hard real life lessons that there must be sophisticated rules and regulations around financial transactions or else enormous negative consequences and human suffering follow.
- jrm4 4y ago100% agree. And the "sophisticated" part is important. This is where Gensler failed hard. You have to make the case.
- bluecalm 4y agoCrypto is the same as introducing your own currency and printing your own notes. "But it's on the computer" doesn't change the nature of it.
- ChainOfFools 4y agoexcept with cryptocurrency the added exploitation of a broader social custom (privacy) shrouds "you" in a thin veil of decentralized deniability, removing all sense of accountability.
- DennisP 4y agoIntroducing your own currency and printing your own notes is legal and has a long history in the US and elsewhere. One famous example is the Ithica Hours. https://cs.stanford.edu/people/eroberts/cs181/projects/2010-11/Bitcoins/ithaca-hour.html https://cs.stanford.edu/people/eroberts/cs181/projects/2010-...
- jrm4 4y agoNot necessarily; a reasonable argument is "it's just another commodity that can change in value." Someone can introduce Pokemon cards and they can change value just fine.
- fallingknife 4y agoCrypto, like anything else, is legal unless it it outlawed. And it hasn't been. Only congress has the power to pass such a law.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- WalterSear 4y agoUnregistered securities are illegal.
- lacker 4y agoUnregistered securities are legal, you just can't sell them to the public. That is one possible outcome for crypto tokens - you could still own Ethereum, and one individual privately selling some to another individual would be legal, but companies like Coinbase wouldn't be allowed to sell it to the public.
- pcthrowaway 4y agoIsn't p2p selling of crypto illegal now though? I thought that's why localbitcoins got shut down.
- lacker 4y agoNo, if you want to sell some crypto to a friend of your, that's fine. I don't know why localbitcoins shut down, but it's perfectly consistent for "facilitating transactions at scale" to be illegal while "doing a single peer to peer transaction" is legal. That's how unregistered securities work, right? I am allowed to buy half of your small business, even though it isn't registered with the SEC. That doesn't mean you're allowed to sell stock in your small business and advertise that on the internet.
- jrm4 4y agoGreat, now prove crypto is a security. They haven't done this yet. I'm sure some fall under that definition, but some of the big boys, especially ETH, are at least ARGUABLY not, and the SEC simply hasn't done enough homework yet.
- jrm4 4y agoI get what you want but that's NOT HOW LAW WORKS or should work. You don't get to declare something is bad first without reasoning your way through it through a tested system like law. That's more or less anti Constitutional / American etc.
- iudqnolq 4y agoIt depends on the specifics. For example, suppose a drug cartel invents a new formula. The DEA gets to ban it under existing law. I'm not saying that's analogous. I'm merely providing a counterexample for your idea that the government always has to create custom laws whenever something new happens.
- yellowapple 4y ago> For example, suppose a drug cartel invents a new formula. The DEA gets to ban it under existing law. The cartels exist in the first place specifically because the DEA exists and keeps knee-jerk banning things without bothering to demonstrate actual harm.
- iudqnolq 4y agoI agree. But it's pretty obvious they're legally allowed to do it.
- imustbeevil 4y agoThey're unregistered securities. Putting them on the internet doesn't change that. We have laws for securities. If you carve a dollar sign into a Banana, commit fraud and embezzle billions of dollars, the problem wasn't the lack of Banana law.
- jrm4 4y agoI think you've just made a point in favor of crypto, and certainly against Gensler, who pretty much made an argument in favor of banning "bananas" entirely.
- fshbbdssbbgdd 4y agoSome things are “uncharted” but others are simply illegal, like selling unregistered securities. The supposed confusion on this point is a pretense to help the legal defense whenever regulators get around to enforcing the law.
- dontknowwhyihn 4y agoIsn’t it interesting how crypto went from tulips to securities all of a sudden?
- karlshea 4y agoTulip mania did have to do with securities, it was basically an options contract bubble.
- imtringued 4y agoJust because some cryptocurrencies are obvious securities, especially the ICO ones, doesn't mean there aren't tulip like cryptocurrencies. Cryptocurrencies are inherently non monolithic in design.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- jrm4 4y agoAnd again, why is crypto a security? There are a lot that clearly do fall under it, but many of the big guys don't. I don't believe you can summarily call Ethereum a security without more homework. That's where Gensler failed. He may not be wrong, but he needs to show his work.
- polygamous_bat 4y ago> I don't believe you can summarily call Ethereum a security without more homework. Ethereum voluntarily changed its definition since the last time SEC gave it "not a security" status. > That's where Gensler failed. He may not be wrong, but he needs to show his work. I am sure he would be very happy to show his work to the court. Thus the Wells notice to Coinbase and the lawsuit against Bittrex. He is just not required to show his homework to Coinbase, much to the dismay of crypto shillers.
- qeternity 4y ago> we're simply in uncharted territory here We're not. Gensler certainly doesn't think so. With a few exceptions, the overwhelming majority of crypto are securities. In most instances, they are indistinguishable from equity. Just because some people believe in the promise of blockchain technologies doesn't change the nature of the things that you ultimately store on said chains.
- DennisP 4y agoApparently he thought ETH was in uncharted territory. Meanwhile the head of the CFTC says many cryptocurrencies including ETH are commodities.
- qeternity 4y agoYes, the head of the Commodities Futures Trading Commission has a clear incentive to call things commodities. Unfortunately, he's not the one who gets to say whether they're securities.
- DennisP 4y agoThe head of the Securities and Exchange Commission has a clear incentive to call things securities. He doesn't "get to say" whether things are securities either. He can claim they're securities but he has to prove cases in court, which isn't turning out to be that easy even for XRP. Ultimately, Congress decides the rules, and not everyone in Congress thinks the SEC is doing a good job here.
- jrm4 4y agoGensler doesn't much think at all, apparently. Again, "Crypto is securities" is an interesting proposition, but there are legal tests and crypto doesn't always "pass" all of them. I'm not saying he's definitely wrong, I am saying that there's not enough "homework" out there to prove he's right and he (et al) need to do better about putting up or shutting up.
- 4y ago