9 ms·

It seems like there's a US government mandate to kill crypto in the US. This energy would've been better at the time of peak-ICO, directed at the worst offender

by tikkun 3y ago

It seems like there's a US government mandate to kill crypto in the US. This energy would've been better at the time of peak-ICO, directed at the worst offenders. Going forward I would hope to see the SEC put more of its energy toward people who did ICOs involving untrue statements and legal violations as key parts of their pitches, as well as people who did SPACs with egregious forward projections.

mikece 3y ago
Cryptocurrency is a threat to the consolidated power of the Central Banks. Yes, "they" will mandate that it be killed, or at least that it's illegal to exchange fiat currency for crypto or use it as legal payment for goods and services.
- agentgumshoe 3y ago
  Do you really think it's not the same people sitting at the top of crypto too? Criminals gonna criminal where it makes money.
  - bdcravens 3y ago
    That's one of the great fantasies in crypto: "The geek shall inherit the earth" There's no reason to believe banks and governments haven't been stacking crypto. The argument is that it wouldn't go unnoticed and large buys would drive up the price, but a well-run purchasing project could easily handle "small" purchases over a long-term, especially if the goal is control and not price speculation.
- anthonyskipper 3y ago
  Cryptocurrency is a general threat to "society". It enabled a lot of bad actors and issues that did not exist before, and it is also in contrast to a lot of previous legislation created specifically to protect the average citizen. We should all treat it as a threat.
  - almavi 3y ago
    Agreed. And, btw, they are not going against token developers or miners but against companies that are profiting from selling securities without complying to the regulations and some times even wash trading them.
    - senttoschool 3y ago
      That’s right. This doesn’t stop your crypto hobbyist from starting the next ETH project. But it does stop scammers and unregistered securities.
  - smeej 3y ago
    Name a single "bad issue" cryptocurrency enables that did not exist before. Not one that is now easier, but one that did not exist and is now possible, that would not be without them.
    - 0xB31B1B 3y ago
      Ransomware. The ransomware economy is powered by crypto, did not exist before crypto, and would not exist without the key feature of crypto, that it allows transfer of money without KYC.
      - cableshaft 3y ago
        Ransomware is easier thanks to crypto, but it doesn't exist only because of crypto. It predates crypto. "But the early ransomware attacks long predate cryptocurrency – the first recorded is thought to have taken place in 1989..." "Without the existence of cryptocurrencies, ransomware would still be a big problem, says Nick Biasini, head of outreach at Cisco Talos. “If you go way back and start at the beginning of ransomware before it became the pervasive issue that it is today, it was actually not based on cryptocurrencies. The payment system was designed around gift cards or various other types of payment cards that you could operate.”[1] "The first known attack was initiated in 1989 by Joseph Popp, PhD, an AIDS researcher, who carried out the attack by distributing 20,000 floppy disks to AIDS researchers spanning more than 90 countries, claiming that the disks contained a program that analyzed an individual’s risk of acquiring AIDS through the use of a questionnaire. However, the disk also contained a malware program that initially remained dormant in computers, only activating after a computer was powered on 90 times. After the 90-start threshold was reached, the malware displayed a message demanding a payment of $189 and another $378 for a software lease. This ransomware attack became known as the AIDS Trojan, or the PC Cyborg." [1]: https://techmonitor.ai/technology/cybersecurity/ransomware-and-cryptocurrencies https://techmonitor.ai/technology/cybersecurity/ransomware-a... [2]: https://www.digitalguardian.com/blog/history-ransomware-attacks-biggest-and-worst-ransomware-attacks-all-time https://www.digitalguardian.com/blog/history-ransomware-atta...
- HenriTEL 3y ago
  That's a fairy tail. The global cryptocurrency market cap is $1.13 Trillion as of today and there's no sign that it'll be back to its peak.
rvz 3y ago
> as well as people who did SPACs with egregious forward projections. SPACs were just as a bad as the ICOs and almost all of them fell 90% since 2020 after their year long pump and dump mania during the retail euphoria.
- agentgumshoe 3y ago
  That's because (as with the release of every new shitcoin) it's just a scam to raise money for the "investors" - by which I mean insiders - and dump it on retail.
- senttoschool 3y ago
  Believe it or not, there’s an order of magnitude more transparency in SPACs than in crypto.
  - rvz 3y ago
    A transparent blockchain with all visible and traceable transactions doesn't get anymore transparent than a blank-check shell company exit scamming retail after a merger that went down 99% and then disappearing.
    - senttoschool 3y ago
      The people operating the blockchains and exchanges aren't transparent. They're extremely secretive. I consulted for a blockchain start up once. They raised money through ICO, did minimal product work, and spent most of the money on cruises and marketing to raise their token price. So yes, the blockchain is transparent. It doesn't mean that much.
lesuorac 3y ago
Yeah FTX did nothing wrong! #FreeSBF The problem with crypto was that non-crypto people got into it. It's all fun and games when you use crypto to pay for things like a currency but the second people start hodling because they speculate its value will increase it becomes a security. While true it would be best if the SEC enforced rules the second they were broken, when have you seen a government agency act fast? It took a literal collapse of FTX for the SEC to get involved.
- matheusmoreira 3y ago
  > the second people start hodling because they speculate its value will increase it becomes a security Huh? So USD is a security now? And so is every other currency in existence?
  - lesuorac 3y ago
    I'm not aware of a case where 1 USD becomes worth more than 1 USD.
    - cableshaft 3y ago
      I can keep USD in a bank or money market account and get more USD out of it, just like I can for Solana or Ethereum. I'm currently earning like 3% on one of my accounts. It might not seem that way because we've had zero percent interest rates for so long and banks have had their rates at like 0.01% or something super low, but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Also the value of the USD changes relative to other currencies all the time. There was a time where you needed 2 USD to get 1 British pound, but right now it's 1.25 british pounds for a dollar (i.e. the USD has increased in value compared to the british pound). There are people that make serious money just from trading between foreign currencies at the right time.
      - lesuorac 3y ago
        You mean if you invest your USD into a Money Market Account its able to generate a yield? How can one sell a Money Market Account for more than they bought one for? The USD isn't generating a yield the Money Market Account is. > There are people that make serious money just from trading between foreign currencies at the right time. And if you advertise the GBP as a way for people to invest their USD on the premise that they can sell the GBP for more USD in the end I bet the SEC will not look fondly on you. There are also people that made bank on the stock market; doesn't make it not a security.
TimPC 3y ago
This is such hyperbole. If you're going to trade securities just register properly and follow the regulations. And yes crypto is a security. The SEC is just doing their job when they fail to register yet trade anyways.
- barnabee 3y ago
  I agree, one has to follow the law. But on the other hand, I'm extremely glad I don't live in the USA. I don't believe the SEC's definition of a security or the rules they put in place are a net good. I would not like to live under the SEC and other US financial regulator's restrictions — not just relating to crypto, but equity crowdfunding, retail derivatives platforms, and more, too. And I would not value the so-called "protections" that target the easiest to apply rules to over the worst offenders, and that have done little or nothing to provide clarity and end regulatory ambiguity. I am not protected from killing myself skiing, or losing all my money gambling, so I should not be "protected" from accessing certain financial assets/products — especially not to the extent and in the way that this happens in the US. I think many (perhaps almost all) other nations have better definitions around securities, and better, more proportionate, and clearer rules for them (of course probably none are perfect, but that is true of nearly all rules). Some of those countries have even accepted that many of their citizens would like to experiment with these new technologies, and might like to see a different model for their regulation, to allow this experimentation, and tried to create rules to allow this, realising that stability and stasis should not be the goal above all else. It is a shame to see this direction of travel.
  - finexplained 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - dang 3y ago
      Yikes, you can't attack other users like that. We ban accounts that do this. I don't want to ban you, so if you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it.
adsfgiodsnrio 3y ago
There is a US government mandate to kill violations of securities law. If "crypto" can't exist without crime, that's hardly the SEC's fault. The SEC can, and should, go after ICO scammers, but there would be zero ICO scammers without the help of Binance, Coinbase, and friends allowing their illegal trade.
- cableshaft 3y ago
  > If "crypto" can't exist without crime, that's hardly the SEC's fault. Bitcoin doesn't fall under the securities definition, so they can't go after that, at least not in this way.
thedangler 3y ago
I wish the SEC would go after MM manipulation in the current stock market. Get rid of Fail to Delivers altogether and stop allowing obvious pump and dumps to prop up margins. But that is just me. as I'm not heavy into crypto.
lettergram 3y ago
Why is the SEC regulating crypto at all? By their definition anything can be a security.
candiddevmike 3y ago
Why let COIN IPO in the first place? Nothing has changed really with cryptocurrency, rubes were more interested when COIN IPO'd than they are now. Did everyone cash out and now it's time to protect people?
pavlov 3y ago
Coinbase has been a primary enabler of VC-funded shitcoin token offerings to retail investors. It's exactly the right target.
dontupvoteme 3y ago
Dedollarisation has them on edge.
uncletammy 3y ago
> This energy would've been better at the time of peak-ICO, directed at the worst offenders. Peak-ICO means peak resources to spend on legal defense. The best time is after at the end of a bear run.

by tikkun 3y ago

mikece 3y ago

Cryptocurrency is a threat to the consolidated power of the Central Banks. Yes, "they" will mandate that it be killed, or at least that it's illegal to exchange fiat currency for crypto or use it as legal payment for goods and services.

agentgumshoe 3y ago
Do you really think it's not the same people sitting at the top of crypto too? Criminals gonna criminal where it makes money.
- bdcravens 3y ago
  That's one of the great fantasies in crypto: "The geek shall inherit the earth" There's no reason to believe banks and governments haven't been stacking crypto. The argument is that it wouldn't go unnoticed and large buys would drive up the price, but a well-run purchasing project could easily handle "small" purchases over a long-term, especially if the goal is control and not price speculation.
anthonyskipper 3y ago
Cryptocurrency is a general threat to "society". It enabled a lot of bad actors and issues that did not exist before, and it is also in contrast to a lot of previous legislation created specifically to protect the average citizen. We should all treat it as a threat.
- almavi 3y ago
  Agreed. And, btw, they are not going against token developers or miners but against companies that are profiting from selling securities without complying to the regulations and some times even wash trading them.
  - senttoschool 3y ago
    That’s right. This doesn’t stop your crypto hobbyist from starting the next ETH project. But it does stop scammers and unregistered securities.
- smeej 3y ago
  Name a single "bad issue" cryptocurrency enables that did not exist before. Not one that is now easier, but one that did not exist and is now possible, that would not be without them.
  - 0xB31B1B 3y ago
    Ransomware. The ransomware economy is powered by crypto, did not exist before crypto, and would not exist without the key feature of crypto, that it allows transfer of money without KYC.
    - cableshaft 3y ago
      Ransomware is easier thanks to crypto, but it doesn't exist only because of crypto. It predates crypto. "But the early ransomware attacks long predate cryptocurrency – the first recorded is thought to have taken place in 1989..." "Without the existence of cryptocurrencies, ransomware would still be a big problem, says Nick Biasini, head of outreach at Cisco Talos. “If you go way back and start at the beginning of ransomware before it became the pervasive issue that it is today, it was actually not based on cryptocurrencies. The payment system was designed around gift cards or various other types of payment cards that you could operate.”[1] "The first known attack was initiated in 1989 by Joseph Popp, PhD, an AIDS researcher, who carried out the attack by distributing 20,000 floppy disks to AIDS researchers spanning more than 90 countries, claiming that the disks contained a program that analyzed an individual’s risk of acquiring AIDS through the use of a questionnaire. However, the disk also contained a malware program that initially remained dormant in computers, only activating after a computer was powered on 90 times. After the 90-start threshold was reached, the malware displayed a message demanding a payment of $189 and another $378 for a software lease. This ransomware attack became known as the AIDS Trojan, or the PC Cyborg." [1]: https://techmonitor.ai/technology/cybersecurity/ransomware-and-cryptocurrencies https://techmonitor.ai/technology/cybersecurity/ransomware-a... [2]: https://www.digitalguardian.com/blog/history-ransomware-attacks-biggest-and-worst-ransomware-attacks-all-time https://www.digitalguardian.com/blog/history-ransomware-atta...
HenriTEL 3y ago
That's a fairy tail. The global cryptocurrency market cap is $1.13 Trillion as of today and there's no sign that it'll be back to its peak.

rvz 3y ago

> as well as people who did SPACs with egregious forward projections. SPACs were just as a bad as the ICOs and almost all of them fell 90% since 2020 after their year long pump and dump mania during the retail euphoria.

agentgumshoe 3y ago
That's because (as with the release of every new shitcoin) it's just a scam to raise money for the "investors" - by which I mean insiders - and dump it on retail.
senttoschool 3y ago
Believe it or not, there’s an order of magnitude more transparency in SPACs than in crypto.
- rvz 3y ago
  A transparent blockchain with all visible and traceable transactions doesn't get anymore transparent than a blank-check shell company exit scamming retail after a merger that went down 99% and then disappearing.
  - senttoschool 3y ago
    The people operating the blockchains and exchanges aren't transparent. They're extremely secretive. I consulted for a blockchain start up once. They raised money through ICO, did minimal product work, and spent most of the money on cruises and marketing to raise their token price. So yes, the blockchain is transparent. It doesn't mean that much.

lesuorac 3y ago

Yeah FTX did nothing wrong! #FreeSBF The problem with crypto was that non-crypto people got into it. It's all fun and games when you use crypto to pay for things like a currency but the second people start hodling because they speculate its value will increase it becomes a security. While true it would be best if the SEC enforced rules the second they were broken, when have you seen a government agency act fast? It took a literal collapse of FTX for the SEC to get involved.

matheusmoreira 3y ago
> the second people start hodling because they speculate its value will increase it becomes a security Huh? So USD is a security now? And so is every other currency in existence?
- lesuorac 3y ago
  I'm not aware of a case where 1 USD becomes worth more than 1 USD.
  - cableshaft 3y ago
    I can keep USD in a bank or money market account and get more USD out of it, just like I can for Solana or Ethereum. I'm currently earning like 3% on one of my accounts. It might not seem that way because we've had zero percent interest rates for so long and banks have had their rates at like 0.01% or something super low, but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Also the value of the USD changes relative to other currencies all the time. There was a time where you needed 2 USD to get 1 British pound, but right now it's 1.25 british pounds for a dollar (i.e. the USD has increased in value compared to the british pound). There are people that make serious money just from trading between foreign currencies at the right time.
    - lesuorac 3y ago
      You mean if you invest your USD into a Money Market Account its able to generate a yield? How can one sell a Money Market Account for more than they bought one for? The USD isn't generating a yield the Money Market Account is. > There are people that make serious money just from trading between foreign currencies at the right time. And if you advertise the GBP as a way for people to invest their USD on the premise that they can sell the GBP for more USD in the end I bet the SEC will not look fondly on you. There are also people that made bank on the stock market; doesn't make it not a security.

TimPC 3y ago

This is such hyperbole. If you're going to trade securities just register properly and follow the regulations. And yes crypto is a security. The SEC is just doing their job when they fail to register yet trade anyways.

barnabee 3y ago
I agree, one has to follow the law. But on the other hand, I'm extremely glad I don't live in the USA. I don't believe the SEC's definition of a security or the rules they put in place are a net good. I would not like to live under the SEC and other US financial regulator's restrictions — not just relating to crypto, but equity crowdfunding, retail derivatives platforms, and more, too. And I would not value the so-called "protections" that target the easiest to apply rules to over the worst offenders, and that have done little or nothing to provide clarity and end regulatory ambiguity. I am not protected from killing myself skiing, or losing all my money gambling, so I should not be "protected" from accessing certain financial assets/products — especially not to the extent and in the way that this happens in the US. I think many (perhaps almost all) other nations have better definitions around securities, and better, more proportionate, and clearer rules for them (of course probably none are perfect, but that is true of nearly all rules). Some of those countries have even accepted that many of their citizens would like to experiment with these new technologies, and might like to see a different model for their regulation, to allow this experimentation, and tried to create rules to allow this, realising that stability and stasis should not be the goal above all else. It is a shame to see this direction of travel.
- finexplained 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - dang 3y ago
    Yikes, you can't attack other users like that. We ban accounts that do this. I don't want to ban you, so if you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it.

adsfgiodsnrio 3y ago

There is a US government mandate to kill violations of securities law. If "crypto" can't exist without crime, that's hardly the SEC's fault. The SEC can, and should, go after ICO scammers, but there would be zero ICO scammers without the help of Binance, Coinbase, and friends allowing their illegal trade.

cableshaft 3y ago
> If "crypto" can't exist without crime, that's hardly the SEC's fault. Bitcoin doesn't fall under the securities definition, so they can't go after that, at least not in this way.

thedangler 3y ago

I wish the SEC would go after MM manipulation in the current stock market. Get rid of Fail to Delivers altogether and stop allowing obvious pump and dumps to prop up margins. But that is just me. as I'm not heavy into crypto.

lettergram 3y ago

Why is the SEC regulating crypto at all? By their definition anything can be a security.

candiddevmike 3y ago

Why let COIN IPO in the first place? Nothing has changed really with cryptocurrency, rubes were more interested when COIN IPO'd than they are now. Did everyone cash out and now it's time to protect people?

pavlov 3y ago

Coinbase has been a primary enabler of VC-funded shitcoin token offerings to retail investors. It's exactly the right target.

dontupvoteme 3y ago

Dedollarisation has them on edge.

uncletammy 3y ago

> This energy would've been better at the time of peak-ICO, directed at the worst offenders. Peak-ICO means peak resources to spend on legal defense. The best time is after at the end of a bear run.