3 ms·

They’ve been given plenty of clarity: crypto is very clearly a security and they’ve repeatedly been told it is such. What they want is for new “clarity” in whic

by olliej 4y ago

They’ve been given plenty of clarity: crypto is very clearly a security and they’ve repeatedly been told it is such. What they want is for new “clarity” in which they are magically no longer subject to the same financial regulations that every other security is.

devoutsalsa 4y ago
I briefly worked for a crypto company. This is my personal observation. The SEC regulates understood things. If you create something new, they’re not going to give guidance for it because they don’t have to give. They’re not in the business of helping people create new markets.
- DennisP 4y ago
  But they also shouldn't be in the business of preventing people from creating new markets, unless we want our society to stagnate.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - hnbad 4y ago
    Disruption for disruption's sake doesn't seem desirable. Stagnation is bad, but not as bad as going in the wrong direction instead of staying still.
    - DennisP 4y ago
      Historically, top-down control of economies hasn't worked out that well. The whole point of free markets is to let everyone decide on the directions they want to take.
      - hnbad 4y ago
        That fully centralized command economies have had severe issues historically doesn't mean completely deregulated markets would fare better. I don't think anyone is seriously hoping for a comeback of privateers. Arguing that one extreme is bad is not an argument for the other extreme, especially when every economy on Earth currently exists somewhere in between those two extremes rather than on either end (except maybe the DPRK if you squint really hard and tilt your head). Incidentally the current scarecrow of unfree markets, the PRC, is doing economically pretty well and "top-down control" within large parts of the industries is pretty popular except we call it "vertical integration". But that's a tangent, I agree. "Stagnation bad, disruption good" is 101 level analysis. The important question remains the direction. Disruption is movement. Movement is good if it takes you to a better place. But if you just move for movement's sake you might as well end up hurling everyone down a cliff. Letting go of all the reins is fun and exciting in a simulation, not so much in the real world where failure can mean death, suffering and permanent harm.
  - polygamous_bat 4y ago
    > But they also shouldn't be in the business of preventing people from creating new markets, unless we want our society to stagnate. That's actually their entire business... to stop sophisticated private enterprises from fleecing the public by offering unregistered securities.
localplume 4y ago
[dead]
super256 4y ago
Uhh, the SEC said that bitcoin is not a security, but a currency. Like Euro or Yen. [1] They also said that some cryptos on coinbase are securities, but when coinbase asked which ones, the SEC said „lol we won’t tell you but we will probably sue you soon for that“. [2] [1] https://www.investopedia.com/news/sec-chair-says-bitcoin-not-security/ https://www.investopedia.com/news/sec-chair-says-bitcoin-not... [2] https://www.coinbase.com/blog/we-asked-the-sec-for-reasonable-crypto-rules-for-americans-we-got-legal https://www.coinbase.com/blog/we-asked-the-sec-for-reasonabl...
- polygamous_bat 4y ago
  > They also said that some cryptos on coinbase are securities, but when coinbase asked which ones, the SEC said „lol we won’t tell you but we will probably sue you soon for that“. [2] Why is SEC supposed to do the job of Coinbase's lawyers? If I want to make a shitcoin tomorrow and ask the SEC for "regulatory clarity", are they required to respond to me? What if I programmatically create a new shitcoin every 30 seconds? Am I also allowed to cook up some substances and mail them to the DEA to get some "regulatory clarity"? Coinbase does business in a legally unclear area, which is why its primary expense should be lawyers. You can't just skimp on that and expect government agencies to do your work for you. If you try that, good luck defending yourself in court.
  - super256 4y ago
    > Why is SEC supposed to do the job of Coinbase's lawyers? The current legal framework for determining whether something is a security or not is the Howey test [1]. And it looks like that Coinbase's listings pass the test? If they didn't, they would've been sued already. Why try to redefine what makes up a security on the fly without telling anyone? [1] https://www.sec.gov/corpfin/framework-investment-contract-analysis-digital-assets https://www.sec.gov/corpfin/framework-investment-contract-an...
    - growse 4y ago
      > And it looks like that Coinbase's listings pass the test? If they didn't, they would've been sued already. Sued by who? The SEC? Who have told them that they intend to bring a legal action?

by olliej 4y ago

devoutsalsa 4y ago

I briefly worked for a crypto company. This is my personal observation. The SEC regulates understood things. If you create something new, they’re not going to give guidance for it because they don’t have to give. They’re not in the business of helping people create new markets.

DennisP 4y ago
But they also shouldn't be in the business of preventing people from creating new markets, unless we want our society to stagnate.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- hnbad 4y ago
  Disruption for disruption's sake doesn't seem desirable. Stagnation is bad, but not as bad as going in the wrong direction instead of staying still.
  - DennisP 4y ago
    Historically, top-down control of economies hasn't worked out that well. The whole point of free markets is to let everyone decide on the directions they want to take.
    - hnbad 4y ago
      That fully centralized command economies have had severe issues historically doesn't mean completely deregulated markets would fare better. I don't think anyone is seriously hoping for a comeback of privateers. Arguing that one extreme is bad is not an argument for the other extreme, especially when every economy on Earth currently exists somewhere in between those two extremes rather than on either end (except maybe the DPRK if you squint really hard and tilt your head). Incidentally the current scarecrow of unfree markets, the PRC, is doing economically pretty well and "top-down control" within large parts of the industries is pretty popular except we call it "vertical integration". But that's a tangent, I agree. "Stagnation bad, disruption good" is 101 level analysis. The important question remains the direction. Disruption is movement. Movement is good if it takes you to a better place. But if you just move for movement's sake you might as well end up hurling everyone down a cliff. Letting go of all the reins is fun and exciting in a simulation, not so much in the real world where failure can mean death, suffering and permanent harm.
- polygamous_bat 4y ago
  > But they also shouldn't be in the business of preventing people from creating new markets, unless we want our society to stagnate. That's actually their entire business... to stop sophisticated private enterprises from fleecing the public by offering unregistered securities.

localplume 4y ago

[dead]

super256 4y ago

Uhh, the SEC said that bitcoin is not a security, but a currency. Like Euro or Yen. [1] They also said that some cryptos on coinbase are securities, but when coinbase asked which ones, the SEC said „lol we won’t tell you but we will probably sue you soon for that“. [2] [1] https://www.investopedia.com/news/sec-chair-says-bitcoin-not-security/ https://www.investopedia.com/news/sec-chair-says-bitcoin-not... [2] https://www.coinbase.com/blog/we-asked-the-sec-for-reasonable-crypto-rules-for-americans-we-got-legal https://www.coinbase.com/blog/we-asked-the-sec-for-reasonabl...

polygamous_bat 4y ago
> They also said that some cryptos on coinbase are securities, but when coinbase asked which ones, the SEC said „lol we won’t tell you but we will probably sue you soon for that“. [2] Why is SEC supposed to do the job of Coinbase's lawyers? If I want to make a shitcoin tomorrow and ask the SEC for "regulatory clarity", are they required to respond to me? What if I programmatically create a new shitcoin every 30 seconds? Am I also allowed to cook up some substances and mail them to the DEA to get some "regulatory clarity"? Coinbase does business in a legally unclear area, which is why its primary expense should be lawyers. You can't just skimp on that and expect government agencies to do your work for you. If you try that, good luck defending yourself in court.
- super256 4y ago
  > Why is SEC supposed to do the job of Coinbase's lawyers? The current legal framework for determining whether something is a security or not is the Howey test [1]. And it looks like that Coinbase's listings pass the test? If they didn't, they would've been sued already. Why try to redefine what makes up a security on the fly without telling anyone? [1] https://www.sec.gov/corpfin/framework-investment-contract-analysis-digital-assets https://www.sec.gov/corpfin/framework-investment-contract-an...
  - growse 4y ago
    > And it looks like that Coinbase's listings pass the test? If they didn't, they would've been sued already. Sued by who? The SEC? Who have told them that they intend to bring a legal action?