10 ms·

Isn’t it true that the SEC wouldn’t let Coinbase register since they said Bitcoin _isn’t_ a security? It’s my understanding that Coinbase tried.

by pnpnp 3y ago

dragontamer 3y ago
Article discusses Coinbase Earn, which was a staking service providing APY yields. Is that not an unregistered financial product? That's also the kind of financial product directly behind FTX, Voyager, Gemini, and Lunacoin / Celsius collapses. So we have direct evidence of a particular produce (staking) that is both unregistered and dangerous. That many Americans lost money over.
- hirako2000 3y ago
  Gemini didn't collapse, and an evidence takes a bit more clarity to be treated as such. Luna is.. a coin Can't you get APY returns as a retail customer with pretty much any high street banks? In what ways is that less dangerous than going through a crypto exchange: by the fact the SEC is actively criminalising the activity rather than issuing licenses so that some customer protection via the justice system remains out there for this sort of market. You mentioned FTX, that's a good example, an exchange run by a con goofy looking artist, that achieved such massive penetration even on the US market was made possible exactly because it is so cumbersome or impossible for a legit business to get a license, the crypto affiliated threats making it also difficult for normal banks to do any sort of business with crypto entities. All that being said, sure, if they don't have a license they can be sued for their earn products. The only clear distinctions, the one thing the name mentioned and many others still running
  - dragontamer 3y ago
    Ehhh, I got confused over the myriad of collapsed companies. Perhaps I shouldn't try to get better memory, but instead cryptocoin companies need to stop collapsing. Its getting difficult to remember each company's situation on an individual basis. Gemini was sued by SEC for running unregulated securities and was forced to shut down Gemini Earn months ago. Whatever, but its just another example of the kind of products the SEC is clearly looking at. > Luna is.. a coin Lunacoin supported Terra, and Celsius was backing its staking product with Terra coins. Are... you unaware of the connection between Luna and Celsius? I wrote "Lunacoin / Celsius" for a reason. This didn't even happen that long ago, so I guess I assumed people would know where I was going. I'm trying to describe the scope of unregistered, unregulated, super-dangerous "staking" schemes that collapsed over the last year. The names I discussed are all related to staking.
    - hirako2000 3y ago
      I'm aware, I'm just pointing out luna is a coin. It's a bit hard to assimilate it to business entities running unregistered financial products on the US soil. My understanding is that Celsius or any lender that gets exposed to a token value collapsing can quickly get itself in serious muds since loans have a collateral, and in crypto those are often crypto tokens. Anyhow that's my recollection of what happened to Celsius, i could be wrong. I don't think the problem the SEC is invoking is "dangerous" investments. I'm not sure who would be entitled to make the difference. You could stake eth and that would be one of the safest positions to take in the crypto space. Actually anybody can, whether the SEC sees it as OK, via centralised exchanges for those who can access them or decentralized exchanges for those who can't. But then of course eth could drop 95% in value by next year and the yield would mean nothing to compensate. It could go the other way and go the other way. Does it make it a dangerous product? A security illegal to trade without a license which the SEC wouldn't grant a license to offer as a product to anyone? Because it's dangerous or because it's a security having drastic volatility? More volatile than Gamespot shares not so long ago? Does it make gamespot so dangerous it should be banned from trading as a security? And one last one, what is more dangerous, owning eth tokens staked for long term returns, or some treasury bonds issued by a country that is systematically on the verge of defaulting on its unbearable debt? And who's to say? I don't think the SEC has any legitimacy left to be taken seriously, it let SBF runs business inside and outside the US soil for years, embezzling well over 10B dollars, whether he is innocent or an idiot crook the ridicule crown goes to the SEC for not having seen anything suspect until after the empire entirely collapsed. About having flimsy memories, it's OK but it discounts serious weight throwing incorrect facts when attacking a type of trading activity as a whole. Your argument did read like because so many collapsed, the whole thing must be flagged as a failure. Anyhow, coinbase, kraken, binance, gemini, kucoin and many others have been operating for years just fine, and are successful, profitable businesses to this day despite all the obstacles regulators and the press threw at them. Anyhow back to the main point, I'm with you earn products if unregistered are non compliant with regulations, so the SEC can have its case and continue to pretend it's doing its job.
  - wins32767 3y ago
    >Can't you get APY returns as a retail customer with pretty much any high street banks? In what ways is that less dangerous than going through a crypto exchange: Well, given that there are clear ways of issuing securities that have worked for hundreds of years that aren't being followed and that people generally don't get the rug pulled in normal securities, I'd say that it's less dangerous in many obvious ways.
    - hirako2000 3y ago
      if coinbase pulls off its earn products you can be well assured that more people will get rug pulled elsewhere. Would you concede that?
      - robryan 3y ago
        Those products elsewhere would also be unregistered securities.
        hirako2000 3y ago
        Yes? Do you think underground activities would care about what the law says about them being illegal? Coinbase at least is a registred corporate playing by the rules, aside the SEC viewing their yield based or futures product non compliant, but the SEC also makes it impossible to achieve compliance, so we may might left off with no code base and totally underground offerings, instead of "some" businesses in the clear that operates within the confined of a justice system. If you feign to see the point that's fine, i just hope you are not so blinded by anti crypto arguments that you can't SEC actions using force and paid by millions of tax payers counter productive for both consumers and the opportunity for the US to remain relevant in the growing crypto economy.
- andreygrehov 3y ago
  > That many Americans lost money over. This requires a citation with data points, eg how many Americans lost money, how much money did they lose, etc. Because, what if there are more Americans who've made money than those who have lost? > SEC said Coinbase has since at least 2019 made billions of dollars by handling cryptocurrency transactions, while evading the disclosure requirements meant to protect investors This is a pure framing - it doesn't matter how much money Coinbase made. Otherwise, it means that if you don't make _billions_, you can conveniently avoid the disclosure requirements intended to protect investors. So really, they should've written something like: "Coinbase has been facilitating cryptocurrency transactions since at least 2019, while evading the disclosure requirements intended to protect investors". While I do understand that these are the legal requirements, the protect investors "narrative" (khm-khm, requirement) is a joke. People lose money trading stocks / options / etc every day. To me, as a consumer, there is zero difference between trading AAPL on TD Ameritrade App vs trading crypto through Coinbase App. How's TD Ameritrade protecting me from losing money?
  - itake 3y ago
    > Because, what if there are more Americans who've made money than those who have lost? Why does this matter? Even if Americans are scamming foreigners (0 Americans losing money), that doesn’t make this legal. The difference between aapl and coinbase is there is regulatory audits of the books and required publications about the health of the security. There are rules about insider trading and insurance protections if a brokerage mishandles your money (see Blockfi).
    - andreygrehov 3y ago
      > Why does this matter? Because the parent said "that many Americans lost money over". Plus the SEC is "protecting investors". So I'm asking, what if there are more people who've made money over those who lost? Does that mean life's good? Coinbase has been pretty transparent about their operations. Not only transparent, they've publicly mentioned several times how frustrated they are dealing with SEC, the organization that is slow to come up with various legal requirements for the cryptocurrency industry. In a way, Coinbase helps the SEC to raise their own bar.
- pa7x1 3y ago
  Minor clarification. Coinbase Earn is a lending product, you lend to Coinbase and you receive interest. The same applies to Celsius, it provided interest on money they borrowed. Coinbase also offers staking as a service, the SEC is also going after this. But both of the above are different from actual Proof of Stake, as conceived by Ethereum. The SEC has made no mention of this in neither of the 2 current lawsuits. Unfortunately many of these products misused the term to whitewash or as a marketing gimmick.
strangescript 3y ago
If you opened an exchange and did nothing but trade bitcoin, and only bitcoin, you would be free and clear, but there is no real money in that. Coinbase argued a few years ago they were losing to competition because their competitors could do a lot of gray area stuff they couldn't to do being a US-based traded company. Getting listed on Coinbase used to be the gold standard of a trusted, respectable crypto, but they at some point decided screw it and just embraced the coming legal challenges.
- pnpnp 3y ago
  Interesting! I hadn’t looked at it this way.
Ekaros 3y ago
Bitcoin itself might not be. Even many other currencies might not. But what other "products" they are running? Those could and probably would fall under various classifications.
- pnpnp 3y ago
  Ah, of course. I forgot that they have many other offerings.
- TimPC 3y ago
  Honestly bitcoin not being a security has been one of the biggest mistakes the SEC has made over the past decade. They gave that guidance and are stuck with it now. But the argument for it being a commodity is pretty weak and being a security would be useful from a regulatory framework. I think it's pretty clear bitcoin needs as much or more regulation than a typical stock or bond and is a more likely source of fraud or problems than typical stocks or bonds are.

Isn’t it true that the SEC wouldn’t let Coinbase register since they said Bitcoin _isn’t_ a security? It’s my understanding that Coinbase tried.

by pnpnp 3y ago

Isn’t it true that the SEC wouldn’t let Coinbase register since they said Bitcoin _isn’t_ a security? It’s my understanding that Coinbase tried.

dragontamer 3y ago

Article discusses Coinbase Earn, which was a staking service providing APY yields. Is that not an unregistered financial product? That's also the kind of financial product directly behind FTX, Voyager, Gemini, and Lunacoin / Celsius collapses. So we have direct evidence of a particular produce (staking) that is both unregistered and dangerous. That many Americans lost money over.

hirako2000 3y ago
Gemini didn't collapse, and an evidence takes a bit more clarity to be treated as such. Luna is.. a coin Can't you get APY returns as a retail customer with pretty much any high street banks? In what ways is that less dangerous than going through a crypto exchange: by the fact the SEC is actively criminalising the activity rather than issuing licenses so that some customer protection via the justice system remains out there for this sort of market. You mentioned FTX, that's a good example, an exchange run by a con goofy looking artist, that achieved such massive penetration even on the US market was made possible exactly because it is so cumbersome or impossible for a legit business to get a license, the crypto affiliated threats making it also difficult for normal banks to do any sort of business with crypto entities. All that being said, sure, if they don't have a license they can be sued for their earn products. The only clear distinctions, the one thing the name mentioned and many others still running
- dragontamer 3y ago
  Ehhh, I got confused over the myriad of collapsed companies. Perhaps I shouldn't try to get better memory, but instead cryptocoin companies need to stop collapsing. Its getting difficult to remember each company's situation on an individual basis. Gemini was sued by SEC for running unregulated securities and was forced to shut down Gemini Earn months ago. Whatever, but its just another example of the kind of products the SEC is clearly looking at. > Luna is.. a coin Lunacoin supported Terra, and Celsius was backing its staking product with Terra coins. Are... you unaware of the connection between Luna and Celsius? I wrote "Lunacoin / Celsius" for a reason. This didn't even happen that long ago, so I guess I assumed people would know where I was going. I'm trying to describe the scope of unregistered, unregulated, super-dangerous "staking" schemes that collapsed over the last year. The names I discussed are all related to staking.
  - hirako2000 3y ago
    I'm aware, I'm just pointing out luna is a coin. It's a bit hard to assimilate it to business entities running unregistered financial products on the US soil. My understanding is that Celsius or any lender that gets exposed to a token value collapsing can quickly get itself in serious muds since loans have a collateral, and in crypto those are often crypto tokens. Anyhow that's my recollection of what happened to Celsius, i could be wrong. I don't think the problem the SEC is invoking is "dangerous" investments. I'm not sure who would be entitled to make the difference. You could stake eth and that would be one of the safest positions to take in the crypto space. Actually anybody can, whether the SEC sees it as OK, via centralised exchanges for those who can access them or decentralized exchanges for those who can't. But then of course eth could drop 95% in value by next year and the yield would mean nothing to compensate. It could go the other way and go the other way. Does it make it a dangerous product? A security illegal to trade without a license which the SEC wouldn't grant a license to offer as a product to anyone? Because it's dangerous or because it's a security having drastic volatility? More volatile than Gamespot shares not so long ago? Does it make gamespot so dangerous it should be banned from trading as a security? And one last one, what is more dangerous, owning eth tokens staked for long term returns, or some treasury bonds issued by a country that is systematically on the verge of defaulting on its unbearable debt? And who's to say? I don't think the SEC has any legitimacy left to be taken seriously, it let SBF runs business inside and outside the US soil for years, embezzling well over 10B dollars, whether he is innocent or an idiot crook the ridicule crown goes to the SEC for not having seen anything suspect until after the empire entirely collapsed. About having flimsy memories, it's OK but it discounts serious weight throwing incorrect facts when attacking a type of trading activity as a whole. Your argument did read like because so many collapsed, the whole thing must be flagged as a failure. Anyhow, coinbase, kraken, binance, gemini, kucoin and many others have been operating for years just fine, and are successful, profitable businesses to this day despite all the obstacles regulators and the press threw at them. Anyhow back to the main point, I'm with you earn products if unregistered are non compliant with regulations, so the SEC can have its case and continue to pretend it's doing its job.
- wins32767 3y ago
  >Can't you get APY returns as a retail customer with pretty much any high street banks? In what ways is that less dangerous than going through a crypto exchange: Well, given that there are clear ways of issuing securities that have worked for hundreds of years that aren't being followed and that people generally don't get the rug pulled in normal securities, I'd say that it's less dangerous in many obvious ways.
  - hirako2000 3y ago
    if coinbase pulls off its earn products you can be well assured that more people will get rug pulled elsewhere. Would you concede that?
    - robryan 3y ago
      Those products elsewhere would also be unregistered securities.
      - hirako2000 3y ago
        Yes? Do you think underground activities would care about what the law says about them being illegal? Coinbase at least is a registred corporate playing by the rules, aside the SEC viewing their yield based or futures product non compliant, but the SEC also makes it impossible to achieve compliance, so we may might left off with no code base and totally underground offerings, instead of "some" businesses in the clear that operates within the confined of a justice system. If you feign to see the point that's fine, i just hope you are not so blinded by anti crypto arguments that you can't SEC actions using force and paid by millions of tax payers counter productive for both consumers and the opportunity for the US to remain relevant in the growing crypto economy.
andreygrehov 3y ago
> That many Americans lost money over. This requires a citation with data points, eg how many Americans lost money, how much money did they lose, etc. Because, what if there are more Americans who've made money than those who have lost? > SEC said Coinbase has since at least 2019 made billions of dollars by handling cryptocurrency transactions, while evading the disclosure requirements meant to protect investors This is a pure framing - it doesn't matter how much money Coinbase made. Otherwise, it means that if you don't make _billions_, you can conveniently avoid the disclosure requirements intended to protect investors. So really, they should've written something like: "Coinbase has been facilitating cryptocurrency transactions since at least 2019, while evading the disclosure requirements intended to protect investors". While I do understand that these are the legal requirements, the protect investors "narrative" (khm-khm, requirement) is a joke. People lose money trading stocks / options / etc every day. To me, as a consumer, there is zero difference between trading AAPL on TD Ameritrade App vs trading crypto through Coinbase App. How's TD Ameritrade protecting me from losing money?
- itake 3y ago
  > Because, what if there are more Americans who've made money than those who have lost? Why does this matter? Even if Americans are scamming foreigners (0 Americans losing money), that doesn’t make this legal. The difference between aapl and coinbase is there is regulatory audits of the books and required publications about the health of the security. There are rules about insider trading and insurance protections if a brokerage mishandles your money (see Blockfi).
  - andreygrehov 3y ago
    > Why does this matter? Because the parent said "that many Americans lost money over". Plus the SEC is "protecting investors". So I'm asking, what if there are more people who've made money over those who lost? Does that mean life's good? Coinbase has been pretty transparent about their operations. Not only transparent, they've publicly mentioned several times how frustrated they are dealing with SEC, the organization that is slow to come up with various legal requirements for the cryptocurrency industry. In a way, Coinbase helps the SEC to raise their own bar.
pa7x1 3y ago
Minor clarification. Coinbase Earn is a lending product, you lend to Coinbase and you receive interest. The same applies to Celsius, it provided interest on money they borrowed. Coinbase also offers staking as a service, the SEC is also going after this. But both of the above are different from actual Proof of Stake, as conceived by Ethereum. The SEC has made no mention of this in neither of the 2 current lawsuits. Unfortunately many of these products misused the term to whitewash or as a marketing gimmick.

strangescript 3y ago

If you opened an exchange and did nothing but trade bitcoin, and only bitcoin, you would be free and clear, but there is no real money in that. Coinbase argued a few years ago they were losing to competition because their competitors could do a lot of gray area stuff they couldn't to do being a US-based traded company. Getting listed on Coinbase used to be the gold standard of a trusted, respectable crypto, but they at some point decided screw it and just embraced the coming legal challenges.

pnpnp 3y ago
Interesting! I hadn’t looked at it this way.

Ekaros 3y ago

Bitcoin itself might not be. Even many other currencies might not. But what other "products" they are running? Those could and probably would fall under various classifications.

pnpnp 3y ago
Ah, of course. I forgot that they have many other offerings.
TimPC 3y ago
Honestly bitcoin not being a security has been one of the biggest mistakes the SEC has made over the past decade. They gave that guidance and are stuck with it now. But the argument for it being a commodity is pretty weak and being a security would be useful from a regulatory framework. I think it's pretty clear bitcoin needs as much or more regulation than a typical stock or bond and is a more likely source of fraud or problems than typical stocks or bonds are.