4 ms·

It sounds like we agree that he should have, but he hasn't.

latchkey 4y ago
The guy taught courses at MIT on bitcoin and previously shilled algorand. He's done research. Although, oddly, he's never done a crypto transaction. He's probably really good at doing standard SEC things, but I'm really starting to question his role in the cryptodigital economy.
- e63f67dd-065b 4y ago
  > Although, oddly, he's never done a crypto transaction. As Matt Levine wrote on his newsletter, saying that the SEC must have traded crypto to regulate it is like saying the DEA should have used meth to regulate meth -- if you think the thing is bad, then obviously you should understand it, then ban it, without using it yourself. Now, people can disagree whether the thing is bad, but it would be foolish to assume that the SEC doesn't know how cryptocurrency works. If you look at the career paths and previous work of most of the top bureaucrats at the SEC, you'll see that they were usually involved in a great deal of legislation or had prominent positions in industry doing real projects.
  - indy 4y ago
    You don't think it strange that the guy who taught a course on blockchains at MIT has never made a transaction on a blockchain?
    - thisgoesnowhere 4y ago
      You think it's strange that people who are researching cancer drugs have never taken them themselves?
      - latchkey 4y ago
        The analogy doesn't work. Everyone has money. Not everyone has cancer. Anyone who takes cancer drugs, is doing research. There is no "cure" for cancer (yet).
      - indy 4y ago
        No I don't think that's strange. A better analogy might be: would you think it strange that someone teaching a C programming class has never compiled a program?
        latchkey 4y ago
        exactly. would you think it is strange that someone who's teaching a C programming class that has never used a computer?
        thisgoesnowhere 4y ago
        There is reason to believe that if he did own it directly that would be a conflict of interest. Here is a actual similar story without hyperbole since this actually happened. 'Imagine someone trying to bring a injunction against Liberty Reserve without owning any any stock in the company or having ever used their products'. 1 - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty_Reserve https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty_Reserve
    - CPLX 4y ago
      No. I also think a botanist could understand how plants reproduce without ever having fucked a cabbage.
      - jonnydubowsky 4y ago
        you win the internet today.
      - latchkey 4y ago
        That's absolutely hilarious, but a bad analogy. Have you ever met a botanist who's never touched a plant?
      - pcthrowaway 4y ago
        I'm sure there's a kinky botanist out there somewhere who would beg to differ
    - im3w1l 4y ago
      Isn't the simplest explanation here that he has in fact done a transaction on a blockchain, but for whatever reason refuses to own up to it?
      - indy 4y ago
        Exactly! And now the question becomes: why would he make such a lie before the House Financial Services Committee?
  - yellowapple 4y ago
    > like saying the DEA should have used meth to regulate meth I am being entirely serious when I say that I trust a meth addict more than I do the DEA to create or impose any sort of regulation.
- pclmulqdq 4y ago
  I think you may misunderstand the level or type of research that is involved in answering this question. It's mostly not about cryptocurrency: understanding that is the easy part of answering this question. The real research that needed to be done is on the law, and it is much more complicated and convoluted, and can result in unclear answers until someone gets sued and a court is forced to decide one way or the other.
  - latchkey 4y ago
    He has the entire government behind him and also praised his team at the SEC.
    - pclmulqdq 4y ago
      I'm sure that they will write a nice, thorough opinion once they are done with their research. They are not going to be dropping that opinion to answer a surprise question (ie not something they knew was going to be asked) in a congressional hearing.
      - latchkey 4y ago
        In the video, they literally said they asked the question in private before hand. Highly suggest you watch it before commenting further.
        pclmulqdq 4y ago
        I am aware of what happened in the testimony. "In private beforehand" doesn't mean "by written request several weeks ahead of time." That would be the requirement to get an answer here.
        latchkey 4y ago
        It is unclear when they had the conversation. It could have been weeks ahead of time. That said, the overall conversation about whether ETH is a security, or not, has been going on with Gensler, for years.

The guy taught courses at MIT on bitcoin and previously shilled algorand. He's done research. Although, oddly, he's never done a crypto transaction. He's probably really good at doing standard SEC things, but I'm really starting to question his role in the cryptodigital economy.

e63f67dd-065b 4y ago
> Although, oddly, he's never done a crypto transaction. As Matt Levine wrote on his newsletter, saying that the SEC must have traded crypto to regulate it is like saying the DEA should have used meth to regulate meth -- if you think the thing is bad, then obviously you should understand it, then ban it, without using it yourself. Now, people can disagree whether the thing is bad, but it would be foolish to assume that the SEC doesn't know how cryptocurrency works. If you look at the career paths and previous work of most of the top bureaucrats at the SEC, you'll see that they were usually involved in a great deal of legislation or had prominent positions in industry doing real projects.
- indy 4y ago
  You don't think it strange that the guy who taught a course on blockchains at MIT has never made a transaction on a blockchain?
  - thisgoesnowhere 4y ago
    You think it's strange that people who are researching cancer drugs have never taken them themselves?
    - latchkey 4y ago
      The analogy doesn't work. Everyone has money. Not everyone has cancer. Anyone who takes cancer drugs, is doing research. There is no "cure" for cancer (yet).
    - indy 4y ago
      No I don't think that's strange. A better analogy might be: would you think it strange that someone teaching a C programming class has never compiled a program?
      - latchkey 4y ago
        exactly. would you think it is strange that someone who's teaching a C programming class that has never used a computer?
        thisgoesnowhere 4y ago
        There is reason to believe that if he did own it directly that would be a conflict of interest. Here is a actual similar story without hyperbole since this actually happened. 'Imagine someone trying to bring a injunction against Liberty Reserve without owning any any stock in the company or having ever used their products'. 1 - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty_Reserve https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty_Reserve
  - CPLX 4y ago
    No. I also think a botanist could understand how plants reproduce without ever having fucked a cabbage.
    - jonnydubowsky 4y ago
      you win the internet today.
    - latchkey 4y ago
      That's absolutely hilarious, but a bad analogy. Have you ever met a botanist who's never touched a plant?
    - pcthrowaway 4y ago
      I'm sure there's a kinky botanist out there somewhere who would beg to differ
  - im3w1l 4y ago
    Isn't the simplest explanation here that he has in fact done a transaction on a blockchain, but for whatever reason refuses to own up to it?
    - indy 4y ago
      Exactly! And now the question becomes: why would he make such a lie before the House Financial Services Committee?
- yellowapple 4y ago
  > like saying the DEA should have used meth to regulate meth I am being entirely serious when I say that I trust a meth addict more than I do the DEA to create or impose any sort of regulation.
pclmulqdq 4y ago
I think you may misunderstand the level or type of research that is involved in answering this question. It's mostly not about cryptocurrency: understanding that is the easy part of answering this question. The real research that needed to be done is on the law, and it is much more complicated and convoluted, and can result in unclear answers until someone gets sued and a court is forced to decide one way or the other.
- latchkey 4y ago
  He has the entire government behind him and also praised his team at the SEC.
  - pclmulqdq 4y ago
    I'm sure that they will write a nice, thorough opinion once they are done with their research. They are not going to be dropping that opinion to answer a surprise question (ie not something they knew was going to be asked) in a congressional hearing.
    - latchkey 4y ago
      In the video, they literally said they asked the question in private before hand. Highly suggest you watch it before commenting further.
      - pclmulqdq 4y ago
        I am aware of what happened in the testimony. "In private beforehand" doesn't mean "by written request several weeks ahead of time." That would be the requirement to get an answer here.
        latchkey 4y ago
        It is unclear when they had the conversation. It could have been weeks ahead of time. That said, the overall conversation about whether ETH is a security, or not, has been going on with Gensler, for years.