4 ms·

The specific crypto tokens they are classifying as securities are: SOL, ADA, MATIC, FIL, SAND, AXS, CHZ, FLOW, ICP, NEAR, VGX, DASH, and NEXO. Of course they

The specific crypto tokens they are classifying as securities are: SOL, ADA, MATIC, FIL, SAND, AXS, CHZ, FLOW, ICP, NEAR, VGX, DASH, and NEXO. Of course they say "not limited to" to hedge their bets, but those are the ones they specifically mention. This is the exact "regulatory clarity" Coinbase has been asking for, but the SEC prefers to sit on their hands for years (while investors are "harmed") and then sue, rather than actually tell Coinbase what they think up front. Sure seems self-serving to me, rather than anything like a genuine interest in protecting investors.

x86x87 3y ago
Hah. Protecting investors. What a bunch of croc. This was never about protecting investors. If it was they would have issues the guidance 5 years ago. This is about blowing up crypto in general by removing the on/off ramps (ie the exchanges). Also: mandatory crypto is bad for the environment and it consumes more power than the whole country of Argentina! /s But nobody seems to care or talk about how much power crapGPT is consuming. The future they tell me
- mjburgess 3y ago
  This is such a dangerous attitude. The reason regulators have waited years, despite the facts of the matter being legally obvious, is not wanting to be blamed for blowing up the whole ponzi house-of-cards. They've waited until enough such houses blew up on their own, that they feel "the facts have been demonstrated". If you want to know why they didnt "blow up crypto", "five years ago", its because of you -- and this attitude. Without it, vast swathes of online grifts that have ruined peoeple's lives wouldve been blown out the water by now.
  - modeless 3y ago
    The whole point of the regulation is to stop it from blowing up and harming investors. If they wait until after then they have failed at their job.
  - foodjinn 3y ago
    The SEC had a hand in the subprime mortgage crisis, quite literally there is no reason to believe they are regulating on the behalf of anyone except the large banks. They absolutely are not regulating to help "investors" they are regulating to protect big banks like JPMC, just like they did in 08.
    - mjburgess 3y ago
      This is genuinely ridiculous. The "big banks" can buy up and own as much of the crytpo ecosystem as they desire, and all the "whales" are "institutional billionaires". Crypto has, for years, been held by "the elite" -- and Andreessen et al. are exactly using it as a system to commit securities fraud. The direction of wealth flow in crypto is from late retail entrants to billionaire major holders who cash out using late entrants. The idea that the SEC, post-collapse-after-collapse, is here to "protect JP Morgan"... i mean, this is a patent lie, misdirection, and act of desperation in trying to set up the SEC as the scapegaot for this exploitative system's failure.
      - foodjinn 3y ago
        I fail to see how that isn't the case when Gensler went to bat for FTX prior to their collapse in similar fashion to the way the SEC behaved in 08, refuses to clarify surrounding the second largest coin in the market, and then comes down on exchanges after years of refusing to clarify what is or is not illegal conduct. They created a situation in which they can choose winners and losers and people are surprised that they're viewed as corrupt? Asinine.
        mjburgess 3y ago
        Gensler was taken in by the tech angle -- duped by the (false) claim that this was a world-changing technical innovation. He was, for years, convinced that "revolutionary" blockchain technology was a viable peer-to-peer accounting ledger for a wide variety of assets. This is the problem with this area: lots of finance guys with no csci experience; lots of csci guys dumb on finance. Anyone who has enough experience of both worlds runs a mile from all of this, and can see the toxic mixture of IT hype, finance "collectables mania", and grift. The SEC is just catching up to how much the finance industry has been duped by bros-in-shorts talking about "algorithms"
- rvz 3y ago
  > Also: mandatory crypto is bad for the environment and it consumes more power than the whole country of Argentina! /s But nobody seems to care or talk about how much power crapGPT is consuming. The future they tell me He's right you know: [0] [1]. Cryptocurrencies like Ethereum moved from proof-of-work to proof-of-stake, eliminating 99% of their CO2 emissions. [2] There are alternatives to PoW and they exist today. AI (Deep Learning) on the other hand is going to continue to waste more energy, water, etc has no viable efficient alternatives in training their deep neural networks without building more data centers. [0] https://gizmodo.com/chatgpt-ai-water-185000-gallons-training-nuclear-1850324249 https://gizmodo.com/chatgpt-ai-water-185000-gallons-training... [1] https://www.standard.co.uk/tech/ai-chatgpt-water-usage-environment-study-b1073866.html https://www.standard.co.uk/tech/ai-chatgpt-water-usage-envir... [2] https://consensys.net/blog/press-release/ethereum-blockchain-eliminates-99-99-of-its-carbon-footprint-overnight-after-a-successful-merge-according-to-new-report/ https://consensys.net/blog/press-release/ethereum-blockchain...
- thot_experiment 3y ago
  Deep learning actually provides something of value now, and the training is in service of seeing if maybe it could do better in the future. Crypto provides a way to part fools from their money, and a way to circumvent financial laws. Yes, I get that there's "value" to circumventing sanctions and whatnot, but that's the same sort of value as making people phone you to cancel a subscription or optimizing CTR on an ad or whatever. It's not the kind of "value" that benefits society.
  - x86x87 3y ago
    lol. value for whom? deep learning just serves the interests of the owners, the corporations and the 1%.
    - thot_experiment 3y ago
      I've personally gotten a lot of value out of generative AI models and I run/train everything locally on 5 year old hardware. It's the literal opposite of the thing you said, we finally have AI that's incredibly accessible and open. Anyone with a half decent GPU can do interesting things with a 2gb blob of tensors.
tyre 3y ago
Nononononononononononono we don't get to play that game. The SEC has perfectly clearly communicated for years its regulatory clarity: most crypto-currencies are obviously securities. When Coinbase and others say "regulatory clarity", they want the answer to be some framework for how they can continue to sell crypto to everyone/anyone. But that's not the policy! Most of these coins are some combination of ponzi schemes, vaporware, pump-and-dumps, fraud, money laundering, rug pulls, etc. The SEC's position absolutely protects investors from getting involved with that crap.
- modeless 3y ago
  That is the policy. The SEC has said that some cryptocurrencies are OK, like Bitcoin and Ethereum. And though today they gave a list of some they don't like, there are plenty of others that they still refuse to talk about despite explicit requests. What is the point of being opaque about it? It's not protecting investors, that's for sure. Seems more like they just want to be punitive.
  - TylerE 3y ago
    New tokens are being spawned faster than the SEC could possibly do even a cursory analysis of them.
    - modeless 3y ago
      Of course. But they could clearly have analyzed more than, say, two in the past decade before filing suit.
  - droopyEyelids 3y ago
    Here's a little thought experiment. Let's say a new government organization makes a rule "You'll get fined if you make a red ball for playing catch" You think about it for a while, and decide to make a red Hecatohedron for playing catch. You start playing catch with it and if it's ok. The new government org doesn't reply and eventually fines you. Is that government organization being opaque?

x86x87 3y ago

Hah. Protecting investors. What a bunch of croc. This was never about protecting investors. If it was they would have issues the guidance 5 years ago. This is about blowing up crypto in general by removing the on/off ramps (ie the exchanges). Also: mandatory crypto is bad for the environment and it consumes more power than the whole country of Argentina! /s But nobody seems to care or talk about how much power crapGPT is consuming. The future they tell me

mjburgess 3y ago
This is such a dangerous attitude. The reason regulators have waited years, despite the facts of the matter being legally obvious, is not wanting to be blamed for blowing up the whole ponzi house-of-cards. They've waited until enough such houses blew up on their own, that they feel "the facts have been demonstrated". If you want to know why they didnt "blow up crypto", "five years ago", its because of you -- and this attitude. Without it, vast swathes of online grifts that have ruined peoeple's lives wouldve been blown out the water by now.
- modeless 3y ago
  The whole point of the regulation is to stop it from blowing up and harming investors. If they wait until after then they have failed at their job.
- foodjinn 3y ago
  The SEC had a hand in the subprime mortgage crisis, quite literally there is no reason to believe they are regulating on the behalf of anyone except the large banks. They absolutely are not regulating to help "investors" they are regulating to protect big banks like JPMC, just like they did in 08.
  - mjburgess 3y ago
    This is genuinely ridiculous. The "big banks" can buy up and own as much of the crytpo ecosystem as they desire, and all the "whales" are "institutional billionaires". Crypto has, for years, been held by "the elite" -- and Andreessen et al. are exactly using it as a system to commit securities fraud. The direction of wealth flow in crypto is from late retail entrants to billionaire major holders who cash out using late entrants. The idea that the SEC, post-collapse-after-collapse, is here to "protect JP Morgan"... i mean, this is a patent lie, misdirection, and act of desperation in trying to set up the SEC as the scapegaot for this exploitative system's failure.
    - foodjinn 3y ago
      I fail to see how that isn't the case when Gensler went to bat for FTX prior to their collapse in similar fashion to the way the SEC behaved in 08, refuses to clarify surrounding the second largest coin in the market, and then comes down on exchanges after years of refusing to clarify what is or is not illegal conduct. They created a situation in which they can choose winners and losers and people are surprised that they're viewed as corrupt? Asinine.
      - mjburgess 3y ago
        Gensler was taken in by the tech angle -- duped by the (false) claim that this was a world-changing technical innovation. He was, for years, convinced that "revolutionary" blockchain technology was a viable peer-to-peer accounting ledger for a wide variety of assets. This is the problem with this area: lots of finance guys with no csci experience; lots of csci guys dumb on finance. Anyone who has enough experience of both worlds runs a mile from all of this, and can see the toxic mixture of IT hype, finance "collectables mania", and grift. The SEC is just catching up to how much the finance industry has been duped by bros-in-shorts talking about "algorithms"
rvz 3y ago
> Also: mandatory crypto is bad for the environment and it consumes more power than the whole country of Argentina! /s But nobody seems to care or talk about how much power crapGPT is consuming. The future they tell me He's right you know: [0] [1]. Cryptocurrencies like Ethereum moved from proof-of-work to proof-of-stake, eliminating 99% of their CO2 emissions. [2] There are alternatives to PoW and they exist today. AI (Deep Learning) on the other hand is going to continue to waste more energy, water, etc has no viable efficient alternatives in training their deep neural networks without building more data centers. [0] https://gizmodo.com/chatgpt-ai-water-185000-gallons-training-nuclear-1850324249 https://gizmodo.com/chatgpt-ai-water-185000-gallons-training... [1] https://www.standard.co.uk/tech/ai-chatgpt-water-usage-environment-study-b1073866.html https://www.standard.co.uk/tech/ai-chatgpt-water-usage-envir... [2] https://consensys.net/blog/press-release/ethereum-blockchain-eliminates-99-99-of-its-carbon-footprint-overnight-after-a-successful-merge-according-to-new-report/ https://consensys.net/blog/press-release/ethereum-blockchain...
thot_experiment 3y ago
Deep learning actually provides something of value now, and the training is in service of seeing if maybe it could do better in the future. Crypto provides a way to part fools from their money, and a way to circumvent financial laws. Yes, I get that there's "value" to circumventing sanctions and whatnot, but that's the same sort of value as making people phone you to cancel a subscription or optimizing CTR on an ad or whatever. It's not the kind of "value" that benefits society.
- x86x87 3y ago
  lol. value for whom? deep learning just serves the interests of the owners, the corporations and the 1%.
  - thot_experiment 3y ago
    I've personally gotten a lot of value out of generative AI models and I run/train everything locally on 5 year old hardware. It's the literal opposite of the thing you said, we finally have AI that's incredibly accessible and open. Anyone with a half decent GPU can do interesting things with a 2gb blob of tensors.

tyre 3y ago

Nononononononononononono we don't get to play that game. The SEC has perfectly clearly communicated for years its regulatory clarity: most crypto-currencies are obviously securities. When Coinbase and others say "regulatory clarity", they want the answer to be some framework for how they can continue to sell crypto to everyone/anyone. But that's not the policy! Most of these coins are some combination of ponzi schemes, vaporware, pump-and-dumps, fraud, money laundering, rug pulls, etc. The SEC's position absolutely protects investors from getting involved with that crap.

modeless 3y ago
That is the policy. The SEC has said that some cryptocurrencies are OK, like Bitcoin and Ethereum. And though today they gave a list of some they don't like, there are plenty of others that they still refuse to talk about despite explicit requests. What is the point of being opaque about it? It's not protecting investors, that's for sure. Seems more like they just want to be punitive.
- TylerE 3y ago
  New tokens are being spawned faster than the SEC could possibly do even a cursory analysis of them.
  - modeless 3y ago
    Of course. But they could clearly have analyzed more than, say, two in the past decade before filing suit.
- droopyEyelids 3y ago
  Here's a little thought experiment. Let's say a new government organization makes a rule "You'll get fined if you make a red ball for playing catch" You think about it for a while, and decide to make a red Hecatohedron for playing catch. You start playing catch with it and if it's ok. The new government org doesn't reply and eventually fines you. Is that government organization being opaque?