4 ms·

> 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

> 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).
lmm 3y ago
> 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. That's putting the cart before the horse. Catching criminals is supposed to be a means to an end; compliance with the law is supposed to be the end, and getting people to voluntarily stop doing crimes is a win. "We can't tell people what the law is because then they might stop breaking it" is absurd policy. > 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. The whole reason people are arguing about this stuff is that there are no clear precedents (or there are multiple contradictory ones); crypto is similar to a lot of things but not exactly the same as any of them.
- davorak 3y ago
  > That's putting the cart before the horse. Catching criminals is supposed to be a means to an end; compliance with the law is supposed to be the end, and getting people to voluntarily stop doing crimes is a win. "We can't tell people what the law is because then they might stop breaking it" is absurd policy. The questioner was not asking about what the law was. They were asking a future potential case or enforcement action. The questioner in the video could have asked about the law and the details and how it has historically been enforced. They did not though. If they did and questions were still dodged then I might agree with what you are putting out here. At the very least I would think the answerer is not well versed on the topic at hand, but I would want the answer to be straight forward with that. > The whole reason people are arguing about this stuff is that there are no clear precedents (or there are multiple contradictory ones); crypto is similar to a lot of things but not exactly the same as any of them. I do not know about that. I think the majority of new crypto coins that have made it into the ads I see are scams, probably because the ones that are scams push for advertisement more. Of those they seem to fall into pyramid scheme and obvious security that would probably run foul of other laws as well. In these cases if a lawyer is not giving a clear answer then you need to hire a new lawyer. Outside the obvious scams I assume there are people who are at best skirting the law at best and some are turning a blind eye, pretending the law is confusing on the topic when it is really not. So far it seems like the SEC is ruling and enforcing the above cases, clear cut cases. If you have a part of the current enforcement that is on something that is ambiguous rather than pretty clear cut then I would be interested what makes it ambiguous and potentially reading more into it.
  - lmm 3y ago
    > So far it seems like the SEC is ruling and enforcing the above cases, clear cut cases. If you have a part of the current enforcement that is on something that is ambiguous rather than pretty clear cut then I would be interested what makes it ambiguous and potentially reading more into it. This article is in significant part about the SEC going after Coinbase, which made a significant effort to stay on the right side of the rules and only allow crypto tokens that operated in ways that are closely analogous to e.g. frequent flier miles. They wrote a great many blog posts giving their perspective and calling for regulatory clarity.

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).

lmm 3y ago

> 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. That's putting the cart before the horse. Catching criminals is supposed to be a means to an end; compliance with the law is supposed to be the end, and getting people to voluntarily stop doing crimes is a win. "We can't tell people what the law is because then they might stop breaking it" is absurd policy. > 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. The whole reason people are arguing about this stuff is that there are no clear precedents (or there are multiple contradictory ones); crypto is similar to a lot of things but not exactly the same as any of them.

davorak 3y ago
> That's putting the cart before the horse. Catching criminals is supposed to be a means to an end; compliance with the law is supposed to be the end, and getting people to voluntarily stop doing crimes is a win. "We can't tell people what the law is because then they might stop breaking it" is absurd policy. The questioner was not asking about what the law was. They were asking a future potential case or enforcement action. The questioner in the video could have asked about the law and the details and how it has historically been enforced. They did not though. If they did and questions were still dodged then I might agree with what you are putting out here. At the very least I would think the answerer is not well versed on the topic at hand, but I would want the answer to be straight forward with that. > The whole reason people are arguing about this stuff is that there are no clear precedents (or there are multiple contradictory ones); crypto is similar to a lot of things but not exactly the same as any of them. I do not know about that. I think the majority of new crypto coins that have made it into the ads I see are scams, probably because the ones that are scams push for advertisement more. Of those they seem to fall into pyramid scheme and obvious security that would probably run foul of other laws as well. In these cases if a lawyer is not giving a clear answer then you need to hire a new lawyer. Outside the obvious scams I assume there are people who are at best skirting the law at best and some are turning a blind eye, pretending the law is confusing on the topic when it is really not. So far it seems like the SEC is ruling and enforcing the above cases, clear cut cases. If you have a part of the current enforcement that is on something that is ambiguous rather than pretty clear cut then I would be interested what makes it ambiguous and potentially reading more into it.
- lmm 3y ago
  > So far it seems like the SEC is ruling and enforcing the above cases, clear cut cases. If you have a part of the current enforcement that is on something that is ambiguous rather than pretty clear cut then I would be interested what makes it ambiguous and potentially reading more into it. This article is in significant part about the SEC going after Coinbase, which made a significant effort to stay on the right side of the rules and only allow crypto tokens that operated in ways that are closely analogous to e.g. frequent flier miles. They wrote a great many blog posts giving their perspective and calling for regulatory clarity.