8 ms·

I like reasoned critiques of crypto. Heck, I think many crypto actors are scammers and should be punished. However, a lot of crypto is legit and this piece reek

I like reasoned critiques of crypto. Heck, I think many crypto actors are scammers and should be punished. However, a lot of crypto is legit and this piece reeks of bias. Some examples: - comparison with heroin - wtf? To extend that ridiculous analogy, it would be akin to FDA approving heroin based products (similar to how SEC approved Bitcoin ETF in 2021) and then going after heroin. What message is SEC trying to deliver? That holding Bitcoin via futures-based ETF is okay but crypto itself is scam? Kafka couldn't have invented a better plot - scare quotes when saying “tyrannical” Gary Gensler - tyrannical is an apt description of Gary. See the previous point about kafkaesque treatment. Also see the congressional testimony where the dude didn't even have a clear answer about the status of Ethereum, which is bigger in market cap than 90% of S&P500. Talk about protecting American consumers!

nickff 3y ago
I suspect that Gensler was obfuscating intentionally when asked about cryptocurrency. Modern regulators seem to prefer retrospective punishment over prospective advice and regulation.
- pseudo0 3y ago
  It seems like a massive regulatory failure to let Coinbase IPO if there are the sort of glaring issues they claim. Coinbase has a market cap of around $10 billion, and is owned by retail investors as part of standard index funds. If it goes to zero tomorrow because of the SEC, that is billions of dollars in losses that could have been avoided by more responsible regulatory behavior. Meanwhile insiders will have cashed in through salary, stock sales, etc.
  - shagie 3y ago
    Here is Coinbase's S1 - https://d18rn0p25nwr6d.cloudfront.net/CIK-0001679788/699359de-d974-4ad9-b7f6-5031f2f432d3.pdf https://d18rn0p25nwr6d.cloudfront.net/CIK-0001679788/699359d... And the S1A https://d18rn0p25nwr6d.cloudfront.net/CIK-0001679788/c9475761-bae4-4556-b8f3-b6d74e47b5f0.pdf https://d18rn0p25nwr6d.cloudfront.net/CIK-0001679788/c947576... In particular: > Bitcoin sparked a revolution by proving the ability to create digital scarcity: a unique and finite digital asset whose ownership could be proven with certainty. This innovation laid the foundation for an open financial system. Today, all forms of value – from those natively created online such as in-game digital goods to traditional securities like equities and bonds – can be represented digitally, as crypto assets. Like the bits of data that power the internet, these crypto assets can be dynamically transmitted, stored, and programmed to serve the needs of an increasingly digital and globally interconnected economy. > Today, we enable customers around the world to store their savings in a wide range of crypto assets, including Bitcoin and USD Coin, and to instantly transfer value globally with the tap of a finger on a smartphone. We provide companies with new ways to transact, incentivize, and reward their users, from offering compounding rewards on savings that pay out by the second to compensating users for virtually completing tasks through global micropayments. The claim is that they're selling assets and traditional securities that are represented digitally. And they acknowledge the risks of future regulation: > • We are subject to an extensive and highly-evolving regulatory landscape and any adverse changes to, or our failure to comply with, any laws and regulations could adversely affect our brand, reputation, business, operating results, and financial condition. > ... > • A particular crypto asset’s status as a “security” in any relevant jurisdiction is subject to a high degree of uncertainty and if we are unable to properly characterize a crypto asset, we may be subject to regulatory scrutiny, investigations, fines, and other penalties, and our business, operating results, and financial condition may be adversely affected. The 'i's are dotted and the 't's are crossed. Is the SEC to evaluate those future possibilities that the assets they claim (in addition to Bitcoin) may be considered securities? Coinbase said its a risk and, well, yep - it is.
  - rodgerd 3y ago
    > It seems like a massive regulatory failure to let Coinbase IPO if there are the sort of glaring issues they claim Did you read the article? Specifically the part where it explains why the SEC does not evaluate the business models of companies?
    - friend_and_foe 3y ago
      I did... the article lists several examples with the claim that the SEC cannot be expected to understand every business under the sun before approving a public sale, completely ignoring the fact that in this case, knowing if a company is operating as an unregistered securities exchange is their supposed expertise and reason to exist. Did you read it?
      - growse 3y ago
        Do you think that if the SEC thinks that Coinbase is operating some sort of unregulated securities exchange, that they should bring some sort of enforcement action?
        bb88 3y ago
        Also do you think that if Coinbase admitted that the SEC might take adverse regulatory action in the S1, should anyone be surprised when the SEC actually does?
        friend_and_foe 3y ago
        Yes, but I think first, they ought to tell us what their criteria is in no uncertain terms.
        Eisenstein 3y ago
        Sorry but law enforcement entities do not have a mandate for, nor are they required to, tell you specifically whether an act is expressly legal or illegal if you ask them. Call a police department and ask them if you are allowed to bury your recently deceased relative on your property. They will tell you to get a lawyer. If they feel like arresting you for illegal disposal of human remains you can't use the defense 'but I asked them and they wouldn't tell me'.
- AbrahamParangi 3y ago
  It seems to me that regulators who are power motivated have more to gain by not saying what can and cannot be done and instead implying that you're breaking the law and using that as leverage over you.
- az226 3y ago
  I mean he was chumming up FTX before it imploded. He seems personally butthurt about crypto for some reason. He’s contradicting himself on statements just a few years ago. He has the maturity of a child, playing games.
  - hef19898 3y ago
    What does SBF have to do with any of that?
- gumby 3y ago
  > Modern regulators seem to prefer retrospective punishment over prospective advice and regulation. In most cases that’s what you want. The Communications Decency Act was written way too early and most of it was struck down, except the important section 230. When the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act was revised in 1962 a huge swath of previously approved drugs of longstanding experience (e.g. aspirin) were grandparented. Most cases. Nuclear reactors are a good counter example. I consider cryptocurrency mathematically interesting but otherwise arrant nonsense. Nevertheless I think the “wait and see” regulatory approach, while frustrating, was the right one: don’t stop it (so people can innovate) but don’t provide the protection of widow-and-orphan rules until it has had time to develop. After all, perhaps there is a pony in there, and early regulation could have strangled it.
  - PretzelPirate 3y ago
    I think there's a reasonableiddle ground and that the SEC waited far too long to take a stance. Allowing companies like Block One, Solana, and IOHK to start up and offer highly-centralized "crypto" assets to US consumers put those consumers at risk of "highly volatile crypto" + centralized control. The SEC did the right thing when suing Ripple, but they've missed opportunities to go after bad actors who were misrepresenting their product as a decentralized network, and now retail investors will be the one who lose. In my opinion, they've failed to act in a reasonable time frame and their inability to do their job will end up hurting common people in the US. I'd like to see Gary Genslar held accountable for his mistake. It's not like he is ignorant around crypto assets and he even evangelised his friends blockchain network to his students when he was teaching at MIT.
- FabHK 3y ago
  > Modern regulators seem to prefer retrospective punishment over prospective advice and regulation. The pertinent laws have been in force since 1933 and 1934, and the Howey Test since 1946. I'd call that regulation prospective enough. Not the SEC's fault that Coinbase preferred wishful thinking (I mean, it sort of worked for Uber).
arcticbull 3y ago
> To extend that ridiculous analogy, it would be akin to FDA approving heroin based products (similar to how SEC approved Bitcoin ETF in 2021) and then going after heroin. So uh, you know you just described the opioid crisis in a nutshell right? Modern opioid painkillers are in fact generally if not entirely accurately, 'heroin based products.' Not just that, prior to the Narcotics Tax Act of 1914 it was kind of a free-for-all, Bayer was selling heroin too! Opium was used to settle fussy babies (note, I'm sure it was very effective). [1] They were approved by the FDA. Then, of course, the FDA went after the makers of these drugs and tightened access to the drugs themselves. [edit] If I were to offer a generous interpretation of the actions of the SEC, it would be that they didn't want to be seen as killing innovation in the crib. They gave crypto latitude, and then they decided they really didn't like what they saw. It's kind of a 'damned if you do, damned if you don't' thing - you either kill it early and get reamed for that, or you let it fester and get blamed for ever having allowed it at all. [1] https://gizmodo.com/when-opium-was-for-newborns-and-bayer-sold-heroin-5896669 https://gizmodo.com/when-opium-was-for-newborns-and-bayer-so...
- Eisenstein 3y ago
  I hate to do this but I don't want people to read your comment and make that their understanding of history: The FDA did not exist until 1930. Even if you count the predecessor agencies they did not 'approve' drugs. They were tasked with fraud prevention (selling things that weren't what they claimed to be) and safety in the sense that the product wasn't poison, but not with ensuring that the thing it claimed to be was actually safe. The legislation which gave the FDA authority to restrict drugs to prescription use and require safety and efficacy approval was the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act which was passed in 1938.
  - arcticbull 3y ago
    It is certainly unclear what I meant when I said "they were approved by the FDA" - I was referring to 'modern opioid painkillers' - medications like oxycodone and fentanyl [1], not heroin. Those enjoy FDA approval to this day. Heroin, as a schedule I is not recognized as having any medical use. [1] https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cder/daf/index.cfm?event=overview.process&ApplNo=202577 https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cder/daf/index.cfm?ev...
JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> comparison with heroin - wtf? To extend that ridiculous analogy, it would be akin to FDA approving heroin based products (similar to how SEC approved Bitcoin ETF in 2021) and then going after heroin You’re describing regulated opiates versus street heroin. That is the point. Nobody thinks street heroin distributors can reasonably be shocked they’re breaking the law just because pharmacists distribute similar products. Expressing good arguments forcefully isn’t irrational. The comparison to heroin distribution is an argument ad absurdum showing why Coinbase’s arguments aren’t novel. The rhetoric would not be a structurally different argument if it were instead about jumbo jets or vodka. > the dude didn't even have a clear answer about the status of Ethereum Is he required to? The SEC isn’t doing anything to suggest it claims jurisdiction over Ethereum. (It’s also not at his discretion.)
- WinstonSmith84 3y ago
  > Is he required to? Not knowing the answer to the most obvious question is mildly embarrassing, to say the least. It's clear that he didn't do his due diligence and jeopardized the SEC competency and integrity. His very clear conflict of interests with FTX (i.e. Sam) and Binance (where he was refused a position some years ago) were already not really helping. And yeah, not knowing the most obvious answer just begs a simple question: how shall all these crypto exchanges have known (better than the SEC) that A, B or C are a commodity but D or E aren't? Please... Crypto will prevail, Gary is just a bump in the road. The question is how much more damage he is going to cause to the US before he is removed, while the world is watching China toying with Ethereum having issued yesterday tokenized notes on that blockchain.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > Not knowing the answer to the most obvious question is mildly embarrassing, to say the least Whether Ethereum is a security is far from obvious. Had Gensler acted like it was, he would have lost credibility. In any case, it's irrelevant to Coinbase, who weren't charged in relation to their Bitcoin or Ether trading. > how shall all these crypto exchanges have known (better than the SEC) that A, B or C are a commodity but D or E aren't The SEC released The DAO Report in 2017 laying out a framework [1]. This is when crypto's lobbying stepped up; the status quo was clear. They wanted a different one. > while the world is watching China toying with Ethereum China has banned crypto since 2021 [2]. BOCI's $30mm placement in Hong Kong through UBS is interesting, but far from a belwether [3]. (UBS Tokenize has been selling digital assets to wealth management clients in Hong Kong and Singapore for a while.) [1] https://www.sec.gov/litigation/investreport/34-81207.pdf https://www.sec.gov/litigation/investreport/34-81207.pdf [2] https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-58678907 https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-58678907 [3] https://www.ubs.com/global/en/media/display-page-ndp/en-20230609-tokenized-notes.html https://www.ubs.com/global/en/media/display-page-ndp/en-2023...
hannob 3y ago
> However, a lot of crypto is legit and this piece reeks of bias. Reminds me of the fortune teller admitting that most fortune tellers are scammers, you just have to go to the legit ones.
fullspectrumdev 3y ago
> reasoned critiques > bias It’s a piece by Molly White, temper your expectations lol, she’s rabidly against cryptocurrency in pretty much any format ever full stop.
EdwardDiego 3y ago
Provide some evidence, any evidence, of your allegations of tyranny. Just because he's being mean to crypto doesn't make him tyrannical.
- RestlessMind 3y ago
  Example: regulation by enforcement. What he should have done: clarified upfront the status of Crypto tokens, like "X, Y, Z are commodities. A, B, C are securities" etc. And then offer a path to register those securities so that Coinbases of the world can start offering them properly. What he did: sued Coinbase for trading 10-11 tokens as unregistered securities. And good players still don't know how to register Crypto tokens with SEC as securities.
  - EdwardDiego 3y ago
    I'm not sure of the legal framework around securities in the US, but I imagine, when a novel financial instrument is being traded, the regulations work along the lines of "Here's the law. We expect you to use it to decide if this instrument is a security or not, and if it is, well, comply. And if you decide it's not, please have a really good argument." Like when you're filing a tax return, you decide if something's deductible or not, based on the tax code, and if you get it wrong, then the Government unleashes pain on you. But they're not holding your hand. It makes sense to me that the people with the most to gain from a novel financial instrument should be the ones who determine if it's legal, and explain why it's legal. And if you don't have legal certainty about the status of token X... ...don't trade it. The exchanges took the risk, made some good (fiat) coin doing so, and now they're finding out they were wrong. And tbh I'm not sure there's an path to registering the many tokens that function as effective Ponzi schemes, because they're illegal. Don't get me wrong, I think that the SEC was asleep at the wheel for years on this, but I can't see how that justifies being outraged when the regulator eventually pulls thumb. They made a lot of money while the regulators were napping. And yeah, still don't see this as tyranny tbh.
__alexs 3y ago
They are not 'scare quotes' because it is a literal quote of Rep. Warren Davidson. One of the people who introduced the act the paragraph is talking about. It helps explain the purpose of the act and the position the people who wrote it in their own words.
xg15 3y ago
The analogy was about Binance's desire to be a broker, exchange and clearinghouse at the same time, something the SEC is specifically tasked to prevent (as far as I understood it). That doesn't have to do anything with the Blockchain technology in general - and it seems reasonable to me that if Coinbase conflates those two things, they are trying to muddy the waters, nothing more. A more specific analogy might go like this: Imagine some awesome new biotech startup that develops a completely new method to interact with cells - activate cellular receptors through long-distance quantum tunneling and gravitational nanolensing or whatever. Then it packages that tech into small, consumer-friendly devices which are programmed to activate a specific metabolic pathway in the wearer's brain: As it happens, that pathway is the exact same that is activated through heroin. Then they sell those devices to the general public without any restrictions. One day, the FDA knocks on the door and says "hey guys, your tech is cool and all and we're sure it can trigger all kinds of amazing medical breakthroughs - but right now, you're using it as heroin with extra steps. And selling hard drugs for recreational use is forbidden." To which the startup guys might reply "oh no no no mister, we're not in the business of making drugs, we're actually a long-distance quantum tunneling/gravitational nanolensing company. You see, this is such a new field and fundamentally incomparable with anything that came before it that, unfortunately, there are no laws yet that we would fall under. However, we absolutely do see the need for regulation, and we're willing to work with you and together arrive at a sensible set of guidelines that won't stifle the immense potential for innovation of that field..." At which point the FDA guy would probably tell them to cut their bullshit and the startup might respond with some long rant about how a tyrannical FDA literally suffocates American innovators or something.
lazzlazzlazz 3y ago
Molly White is being dishonest (misguided?) here, but this is typical of her work.

nickff 3y ago

I suspect that Gensler was obfuscating intentionally when asked about cryptocurrency. Modern regulators seem to prefer retrospective punishment over prospective advice and regulation.

pseudo0 3y ago
It seems like a massive regulatory failure to let Coinbase IPO if there are the sort of glaring issues they claim. Coinbase has a market cap of around $10 billion, and is owned by retail investors as part of standard index funds. If it goes to zero tomorrow because of the SEC, that is billions of dollars in losses that could have been avoided by more responsible regulatory behavior. Meanwhile insiders will have cashed in through salary, stock sales, etc.
- shagie 3y ago
  Here is Coinbase's S1 - https://d18rn0p25nwr6d.cloudfront.net/CIK-0001679788/699359de-d974-4ad9-b7f6-5031f2f432d3.pdf https://d18rn0p25nwr6d.cloudfront.net/CIK-0001679788/699359d... And the S1A https://d18rn0p25nwr6d.cloudfront.net/CIK-0001679788/c9475761-bae4-4556-b8f3-b6d74e47b5f0.pdf https://d18rn0p25nwr6d.cloudfront.net/CIK-0001679788/c947576... In particular: > Bitcoin sparked a revolution by proving the ability to create digital scarcity: a unique and finite digital asset whose ownership could be proven with certainty. This innovation laid the foundation for an open financial system. Today, all forms of value – from those natively created online such as in-game digital goods to traditional securities like equities and bonds – can be represented digitally, as crypto assets. Like the bits of data that power the internet, these crypto assets can be dynamically transmitted, stored, and programmed to serve the needs of an increasingly digital and globally interconnected economy. > Today, we enable customers around the world to store their savings in a wide range of crypto assets, including Bitcoin and USD Coin, and to instantly transfer value globally with the tap of a finger on a smartphone. We provide companies with new ways to transact, incentivize, and reward their users, from offering compounding rewards on savings that pay out by the second to compensating users for virtually completing tasks through global micropayments. The claim is that they're selling assets and traditional securities that are represented digitally. And they acknowledge the risks of future regulation: > • We are subject to an extensive and highly-evolving regulatory landscape and any adverse changes to, or our failure to comply with, any laws and regulations could adversely affect our brand, reputation, business, operating results, and financial condition. > ... > • A particular crypto asset’s status as a “security” in any relevant jurisdiction is subject to a high degree of uncertainty and if we are unable to properly characterize a crypto asset, we may be subject to regulatory scrutiny, investigations, fines, and other penalties, and our business, operating results, and financial condition may be adversely affected. The 'i's are dotted and the 't's are crossed. Is the SEC to evaluate those future possibilities that the assets they claim (in addition to Bitcoin) may be considered securities? Coinbase said its a risk and, well, yep - it is.
- rodgerd 3y ago
  > It seems like a massive regulatory failure to let Coinbase IPO if there are the sort of glaring issues they claim Did you read the article? Specifically the part where it explains why the SEC does not evaluate the business models of companies?
  - friend_and_foe 3y ago
    I did... the article lists several examples with the claim that the SEC cannot be expected to understand every business under the sun before approving a public sale, completely ignoring the fact that in this case, knowing if a company is operating as an unregistered securities exchange is their supposed expertise and reason to exist. Did you read it?
    - growse 3y ago
      Do you think that if the SEC thinks that Coinbase is operating some sort of unregulated securities exchange, that they should bring some sort of enforcement action?
      - bb88 3y ago
        Also do you think that if Coinbase admitted that the SEC might take adverse regulatory action in the S1, should anyone be surprised when the SEC actually does?
      - friend_and_foe 3y ago
        Yes, but I think first, they ought to tell us what their criteria is in no uncertain terms.
        Eisenstein 3y ago
        Sorry but law enforcement entities do not have a mandate for, nor are they required to, tell you specifically whether an act is expressly legal or illegal if you ask them. Call a police department and ask them if you are allowed to bury your recently deceased relative on your property. They will tell you to get a lawyer. If they feel like arresting you for illegal disposal of human remains you can't use the defense 'but I asked them and they wouldn't tell me'.
AbrahamParangi 3y ago
It seems to me that regulators who are power motivated have more to gain by not saying what can and cannot be done and instead implying that you're breaking the law and using that as leverage over you.
az226 3y ago
I mean he was chumming up FTX before it imploded. He seems personally butthurt about crypto for some reason. He’s contradicting himself on statements just a few years ago. He has the maturity of a child, playing games.
- hef19898 3y ago
  What does SBF have to do with any of that?
gumby 3y ago
> Modern regulators seem to prefer retrospective punishment over prospective advice and regulation. In most cases that’s what you want. The Communications Decency Act was written way too early and most of it was struck down, except the important section 230. When the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act was revised in 1962 a huge swath of previously approved drugs of longstanding experience (e.g. aspirin) were grandparented. Most cases. Nuclear reactors are a good counter example. I consider cryptocurrency mathematically interesting but otherwise arrant nonsense. Nevertheless I think the “wait and see” regulatory approach, while frustrating, was the right one: don’t stop it (so people can innovate) but don’t provide the protection of widow-and-orphan rules until it has had time to develop. After all, perhaps there is a pony in there, and early regulation could have strangled it.
- PretzelPirate 3y ago
  I think there's a reasonableiddle ground and that the SEC waited far too long to take a stance. Allowing companies like Block One, Solana, and IOHK to start up and offer highly-centralized "crypto" assets to US consumers put those consumers at risk of "highly volatile crypto" + centralized control. The SEC did the right thing when suing Ripple, but they've missed opportunities to go after bad actors who were misrepresenting their product as a decentralized network, and now retail investors will be the one who lose. In my opinion, they've failed to act in a reasonable time frame and their inability to do their job will end up hurting common people in the US. I'd like to see Gary Genslar held accountable for his mistake. It's not like he is ignorant around crypto assets and he even evangelised his friends blockchain network to his students when he was teaching at MIT.
FabHK 3y ago
> Modern regulators seem to prefer retrospective punishment over prospective advice and regulation. The pertinent laws have been in force since 1933 and 1934, and the Howey Test since 1946. I'd call that regulation prospective enough. Not the SEC's fault that Coinbase preferred wishful thinking (I mean, it sort of worked for Uber).

arcticbull 3y ago

> To extend that ridiculous analogy, it would be akin to FDA approving heroin based products (similar to how SEC approved Bitcoin ETF in 2021) and then going after heroin. So uh, you know you just described the opioid crisis in a nutshell right? Modern opioid painkillers are in fact generally if not entirely accurately, 'heroin based products.' Not just that, prior to the Narcotics Tax Act of 1914 it was kind of a free-for-all, Bayer was selling heroin too! Opium was used to settle fussy babies (note, I'm sure it was very effective). [1] They were approved by the FDA. Then, of course, the FDA went after the makers of these drugs and tightened access to the drugs themselves. [edit] If I were to offer a generous interpretation of the actions of the SEC, it would be that they didn't want to be seen as killing innovation in the crib. They gave crypto latitude, and then they decided they really didn't like what they saw. It's kind of a 'damned if you do, damned if you don't' thing - you either kill it early and get reamed for that, or you let it fester and get blamed for ever having allowed it at all. [1] https://gizmodo.com/when-opium-was-for-newborns-and-bayer-sold-heroin-5896669 https://gizmodo.com/when-opium-was-for-newborns-and-bayer-so...

Eisenstein 3y ago
I hate to do this but I don't want people to read your comment and make that their understanding of history: The FDA did not exist until 1930. Even if you count the predecessor agencies they did not 'approve' drugs. They were tasked with fraud prevention (selling things that weren't what they claimed to be) and safety in the sense that the product wasn't poison, but not with ensuring that the thing it claimed to be was actually safe. The legislation which gave the FDA authority to restrict drugs to prescription use and require safety and efficacy approval was the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act which was passed in 1938.
- arcticbull 3y ago
  It is certainly unclear what I meant when I said "they were approved by the FDA" - I was referring to 'modern opioid painkillers' - medications like oxycodone and fentanyl [1], not heroin. Those enjoy FDA approval to this day. Heroin, as a schedule I is not recognized as having any medical use. [1] https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cder/daf/index.cfm?event=overview.process&ApplNo=202577 https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cder/daf/index.cfm?ev...

JumpCrisscross 3y ago

> comparison with heroin - wtf? To extend that ridiculous analogy, it would be akin to FDA approving heroin based products (similar to how SEC approved Bitcoin ETF in 2021) and then going after heroin You’re describing regulated opiates versus street heroin. That is the point. Nobody thinks street heroin distributors can reasonably be shocked they’re breaking the law just because pharmacists distribute similar products. Expressing good arguments forcefully isn’t irrational. The comparison to heroin distribution is an argument ad absurdum showing why Coinbase’s arguments aren’t novel. The rhetoric would not be a structurally different argument if it were instead about jumbo jets or vodka. > the dude didn't even have a clear answer about the status of Ethereum Is he required to? The SEC isn’t doing anything to suggest it claims jurisdiction over Ethereum. (It’s also not at his discretion.)

WinstonSmith84 3y ago
> Is he required to? Not knowing the answer to the most obvious question is mildly embarrassing, to say the least. It's clear that he didn't do his due diligence and jeopardized the SEC competency and integrity. His very clear conflict of interests with FTX (i.e. Sam) and Binance (where he was refused a position some years ago) were already not really helping. And yeah, not knowing the most obvious answer just begs a simple question: how shall all these crypto exchanges have known (better than the SEC) that A, B or C are a commodity but D or E aren't? Please... Crypto will prevail, Gary is just a bump in the road. The question is how much more damage he is going to cause to the US before he is removed, while the world is watching China toying with Ethereum having issued yesterday tokenized notes on that blockchain.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > Not knowing the answer to the most obvious question is mildly embarrassing, to say the least Whether Ethereum is a security is far from obvious. Had Gensler acted like it was, he would have lost credibility. In any case, it's irrelevant to Coinbase, who weren't charged in relation to their Bitcoin or Ether trading. > how shall all these crypto exchanges have known (better than the SEC) that A, B or C are a commodity but D or E aren't The SEC released The DAO Report in 2017 laying out a framework [1]. This is when crypto's lobbying stepped up; the status quo was clear. They wanted a different one. > while the world is watching China toying with Ethereum China has banned crypto since 2021 [2]. BOCI's $30mm placement in Hong Kong through UBS is interesting, but far from a belwether [3]. (UBS Tokenize has been selling digital assets to wealth management clients in Hong Kong and Singapore for a while.) [1] https://www.sec.gov/litigation/investreport/34-81207.pdf https://www.sec.gov/litigation/investreport/34-81207.pdf [2] https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-58678907 https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-58678907 [3] https://www.ubs.com/global/en/media/display-page-ndp/en-20230609-tokenized-notes.html https://www.ubs.com/global/en/media/display-page-ndp/en-2023...

hannob 3y ago

> However, a lot of crypto is legit and this piece reeks of bias. Reminds me of the fortune teller admitting that most fortune tellers are scammers, you just have to go to the legit ones.

fullspectrumdev 3y ago

> reasoned critiques > bias It’s a piece by Molly White, temper your expectations lol, she’s rabidly against cryptocurrency in pretty much any format ever full stop.

EdwardDiego 3y ago

Provide some evidence, any evidence, of your allegations of tyranny. Just because he's being mean to crypto doesn't make him tyrannical.

RestlessMind 3y ago
Example: regulation by enforcement. What he should have done: clarified upfront the status of Crypto tokens, like "X, Y, Z are commodities. A, B, C are securities" etc. And then offer a path to register those securities so that Coinbases of the world can start offering them properly. What he did: sued Coinbase for trading 10-11 tokens as unregistered securities. And good players still don't know how to register Crypto tokens with SEC as securities.
- EdwardDiego 3y ago
  I'm not sure of the legal framework around securities in the US, but I imagine, when a novel financial instrument is being traded, the regulations work along the lines of "Here's the law. We expect you to use it to decide if this instrument is a security or not, and if it is, well, comply. And if you decide it's not, please have a really good argument." Like when you're filing a tax return, you decide if something's deductible or not, based on the tax code, and if you get it wrong, then the Government unleashes pain on you. But they're not holding your hand. It makes sense to me that the people with the most to gain from a novel financial instrument should be the ones who determine if it's legal, and explain why it's legal. And if you don't have legal certainty about the status of token X... ...don't trade it. The exchanges took the risk, made some good (fiat) coin doing so, and now they're finding out they were wrong. And tbh I'm not sure there's an path to registering the many tokens that function as effective Ponzi schemes, because they're illegal. Don't get me wrong, I think that the SEC was asleep at the wheel for years on this, but I can't see how that justifies being outraged when the regulator eventually pulls thumb. They made a lot of money while the regulators were napping. And yeah, still don't see this as tyranny tbh.

__alexs 3y ago

They are not 'scare quotes' because it is a literal quote of Rep. Warren Davidson. One of the people who introduced the act the paragraph is talking about. It helps explain the purpose of the act and the position the people who wrote it in their own words.

xg15 3y ago

The analogy was about Binance's desire to be a broker, exchange and clearinghouse at the same time, something the SEC is specifically tasked to prevent (as far as I understood it). That doesn't have to do anything with the Blockchain technology in general - and it seems reasonable to me that if Coinbase conflates those two things, they are trying to muddy the waters, nothing more. A more specific analogy might go like this: Imagine some awesome new biotech startup that develops a completely new method to interact with cells - activate cellular receptors through long-distance quantum tunneling and gravitational nanolensing or whatever. Then it packages that tech into small, consumer-friendly devices which are programmed to activate a specific metabolic pathway in the wearer's brain: As it happens, that pathway is the exact same that is activated through heroin. Then they sell those devices to the general public without any restrictions. One day, the FDA knocks on the door and says "hey guys, your tech is cool and all and we're sure it can trigger all kinds of amazing medical breakthroughs - but right now, you're using it as heroin with extra steps. And selling hard drugs for recreational use is forbidden." To which the startup guys might reply "oh no no no mister, we're not in the business of making drugs, we're actually a long-distance quantum tunneling/gravitational nanolensing company. You see, this is such a new field and fundamentally incomparable with anything that came before it that, unfortunately, there are no laws yet that we would fall under. However, we absolutely do see the need for regulation, and we're willing to work with you and together arrive at a sensible set of guidelines that won't stifle the immense potential for innovation of that field..." At which point the FDA guy would probably tell them to cut their bullshit and the startup might respond with some long rant about how a tyrannical FDA literally suffocates American innovators or something.

lazzlazzlazz 3y ago

Molly White is being dishonest (misguided?) here, but this is typical of her work.