3 ms·

Is it really surprising that the chair of the SEC cannot just dispense SEC positions without consulting with lawyers?

whimsicalism 3y ago
Has Gensler never consulted lawyers on the status of ethereum prior to this hearing? It should be easy yes or no from the lawyers, I'm hearing that the law is incredibly clear and not really prone to misinterpretation so it shouldn't be an issue. Or maybe Gensler's lawyers are "extremely inexperienced" if they couldn't figure out such an obvious issue?
- arcticbull 3y ago
  You're not answering the question. Why do you think Gensler in official capacity should just dispense one-off soundbite determinations at the request of some clown grilling him? > It should be easy yes or no from the lawyers... When has that ever been the case, and why should it be the case now? [edit] The law is not just what's written but the entirely of case law. The SEC has provided a framework for analysis of securities in the context of crypto. It's here. [1] And it builds on the DAO report, here. [2] [1] https://www.sec.gov/files/dlt-framework.pdf https://www.sec.gov/files/dlt-framework.pdf [2] https://www.sec.gov/litigation/investreport/34-81207.pdf https://www.sec.gov/litigation/investreport/34-81207.pdf
  - whimsicalism 3y ago
    It is not at all surprising to me that he would refuse to answer the question, but the precise reason he is doing that is so that the SEC has freedom of movement to regulate without being pinned down by public statements he has made in front of congress. But that entire notion belies the idea that the regulations are super clear or predictable. The whole reason for this kind of maneuver is because the regulations are not clear or predictable. I have no doubt he has discussed the status of ethereum with SEC lawyers before.
    - arcticbull 3y ago
      > It is not at all surprising to me that he would refuse to answer the question, but the precise reason he is doing that is so that the SEC has freedom of movement to regulate without being pinned down by public statements he has made in front of congress. Because they're a legal body and what they say off hand is precedent, so of course they have to be measured and thoughtful. This was a shameful display, but not by Gensler. > I have no doubt he has discussed the status of ethereum with SEC lawyers before. Me too, but again, I refer you to the DAO Report and the Framework for “Investment Contract” Analysis of Digital Assets > But that entire notion belies the idea that the regulations are super clear or predictable. The whole reason for this kind of maneuver is because the regulations are not clear or predictable. They're quite clear, and the whole reason for this kind of maneuver is showboating and pandering. Based on this thread it seems to be working. In a similar vein I'm confident that Brian and his attorneys have spoken and concluded that they're almost 100% certain to be securities, and for that reason, they chose to avoid working with the SEC at all costs at every point along the way. But of course that determination would undermine the business, so off to court we go.
    - freejazz 3y ago
      You don't seem to understand that what he says isn't binding on the SEC
      - willcipriano 3y ago
        How does he or the SEC benefit by making a statement?
        freejazz 3y ago
        He doesn't
  - lmm 3y ago
    > Why do you think Gensler in official capacity should just dispense one-off soundbite determinations at the request of some clown grilling him? Because the whole point of the rule of law is that the law same law applies to any clown. If the head of securities law in the country can't tell you whether a basic thing is legal or not then why even bother having a congress and elections and any pretense that we live in something other than a corrupt oligarchy? > [edit] The law is not just what's written but the entirely of case law. The SEC has provided a framework for analysis of securities in the context of crypto. It's here. [1] And it builds on the DAO report, here. [2] If the SEC themselves is incapable of applying their framework to the second-most-prominent entry in the category of things it's designed to analyse, then what is that framework good for?
    - davorak 3y ago
      > Because the whole point of the rule of law is that the law same law applies to any clown. If the head of securities law in the country can't tell you whether a basic thing is legal or not then why even bother having a congress and elections and any pretense that we live in something other than a corrupt oligarchy? In the linked video the questioner is asking about about potential future cases/decisions and one reason not to comment on specific cases/decisions, as is what happened in the video[0], is that an agency does not want to telegraph their moves ahead of time, since that would give potential criminals a heads up that they are on a deadline and need to focus on cover up their crimes. If the questioner needs insight into how policing actions are decided they can ask about pervious cases/decisions and the reasoning that went into those pervious cases/decisions. [0]: https://youtu.be/VhA1dZXeao0?t=58 https://youtu.be/VhA1dZXeao0?t=58
      - froggit 3y ago
        >an agency does not want to telegraph their moves ahead of time, since that would give potential criminals a heads up that they are on a deadline and need to focus on cover up their crimes. I think you might mean the "potential suspects" of the investigation. "Criminal" as a basic categorization is binary in nature. All non-criminals are also "potential criminals." No criminals are "potential criminals" (they've already realized said potential).
- beambot 3y ago
  > It should be easy yes or no from the lawyers [...] I've rarely received such an unequivocal binary response from a lawyer...
theknocker 3y ago
[dead]

Has Gensler never consulted lawyers on the status of ethereum prior to this hearing? It should be easy yes or no from the lawyers, I'm hearing that the law is incredibly clear and not really prone to misinterpretation so it shouldn't be an issue. Or maybe Gensler's lawyers are "extremely inexperienced" if they couldn't figure out such an obvious issue?

arcticbull 3y ago
You're not answering the question. Why do you think Gensler in official capacity should just dispense one-off soundbite determinations at the request of some clown grilling him? > It should be easy yes or no from the lawyers... When has that ever been the case, and why should it be the case now? [edit] The law is not just what's written but the entirely of case law. The SEC has provided a framework for analysis of securities in the context of crypto. It's here. [1] And it builds on the DAO report, here. [2] [1] https://www.sec.gov/files/dlt-framework.pdf https://www.sec.gov/files/dlt-framework.pdf [2] https://www.sec.gov/litigation/investreport/34-81207.pdf https://www.sec.gov/litigation/investreport/34-81207.pdf
- whimsicalism 3y ago
  It is not at all surprising to me that he would refuse to answer the question, but the precise reason he is doing that is so that the SEC has freedom of movement to regulate without being pinned down by public statements he has made in front of congress. But that entire notion belies the idea that the regulations are super clear or predictable. The whole reason for this kind of maneuver is because the regulations are not clear or predictable. I have no doubt he has discussed the status of ethereum with SEC lawyers before.
  - arcticbull 3y ago
    > It is not at all surprising to me that he would refuse to answer the question, but the precise reason he is doing that is so that the SEC has freedom of movement to regulate without being pinned down by public statements he has made in front of congress. Because they're a legal body and what they say off hand is precedent, so of course they have to be measured and thoughtful. This was a shameful display, but not by Gensler. > I have no doubt he has discussed the status of ethereum with SEC lawyers before. Me too, but again, I refer you to the DAO Report and the Framework for “Investment Contract” Analysis of Digital Assets > But that entire notion belies the idea that the regulations are super clear or predictable. The whole reason for this kind of maneuver is because the regulations are not clear or predictable. They're quite clear, and the whole reason for this kind of maneuver is showboating and pandering. Based on this thread it seems to be working. In a similar vein I'm confident that Brian and his attorneys have spoken and concluded that they're almost 100% certain to be securities, and for that reason, they chose to avoid working with the SEC at all costs at every point along the way. But of course that determination would undermine the business, so off to court we go.
  - freejazz 3y ago
    You don't seem to understand that what he says isn't binding on the SEC
    - willcipriano 3y ago
      How does he or the SEC benefit by making a statement?
      - freejazz 3y ago
        He doesn't
- lmm 3y ago
  > Why do you think Gensler in official capacity should just dispense one-off soundbite determinations at the request of some clown grilling him? Because the whole point of the rule of law is that the law same law applies to any clown. If the head of securities law in the country can't tell you whether a basic thing is legal or not then why even bother having a congress and elections and any pretense that we live in something other than a corrupt oligarchy? > [edit] The law is not just what's written but the entirely of case law. The SEC has provided a framework for analysis of securities in the context of crypto. It's here. [1] And it builds on the DAO report, here. [2] If the SEC themselves is incapable of applying their framework to the second-most-prominent entry in the category of things it's designed to analyse, then what is that framework good for?
  - davorak 3y ago
    > Because the whole point of the rule of law is that the law same law applies to any clown. If the head of securities law in the country can't tell you whether a basic thing is legal or not then why even bother having a congress and elections and any pretense that we live in something other than a corrupt oligarchy? In the linked video the questioner is asking about about potential future cases/decisions and one reason not to comment on specific cases/decisions, as is what happened in the video[0], is that an agency does not want to telegraph their moves ahead of time, since that would give potential criminals a heads up that they are on a deadline and need to focus on cover up their crimes. If the questioner needs insight into how policing actions are decided they can ask about pervious cases/decisions and the reasoning that went into those pervious cases/decisions. [0]: https://youtu.be/VhA1dZXeao0?t=58 https://youtu.be/VhA1dZXeao0?t=58
    - froggit 3y ago
      >an agency does not want to telegraph their moves ahead of time, since that would give potential criminals a heads up that they are on a deadline and need to focus on cover up their crimes. I think you might mean the "potential suspects" of the investigation. "Criminal" as a basic categorization is binary in nature. All non-criminals are also "potential criminals." No criminals are "potential criminals" (they've already realized said potential).
beambot 3y ago
> It should be easy yes or no from the lawyers [...] I've rarely received such an unequivocal binary response from a lawyer...

theknocker 3y ago

[dead]