4 ms·
Nononononononononononono we don't get to play that game. The SEC has perfectly clearly communicated for years its regulatory clarity: most crypto-currencies are
by 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 agoThat 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 agoNew tokens are being spawned faster than the SEC could possibly do even a cursory analysis of them.
- modeless 3y agoOf course. But they could clearly have analyzed more than, say, two in the past decade before filing suit.
- droopyEyelids 3y agoHere'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?