3 ms·

I don't agree that a regulatory agency saying "hint hint time to register" for years on end is an effective way to regulate. The first step of effective regula

I don't agree that a regulatory agency saying "hint hint time to register" for years on end is an effective way to regulate. The first step of effective regulation is to state exactly what is out of compliance, which they finally did only a few days ago by listing which particular coins are the ones that put Coinbase out of compliance. The second step is to explain why those particular coins cause them to be non-compliant and why other coins (Bitcoin) are exempt, in such a way that Coinbase has rules they can apply to determine whether a particular new coin is compliant or not. That clarity is the part we're still waiting for.

ceejayoz 3y ago
> I don't agree that a regulatory agency saying "hint hint time to register" for years on end is an effective way to regulate. Nah, the alternative is why cops get away with everything via qualified immunity. Conmen don’t get given a pat list of what is and isn’t allowed; no one wants to play the “but you saaaaaaid!” game that results.
- everfree 3y ago
  > Conmen don’t get given a pat list of what is and isn’t allowed; no one wants to play the “but you saaaaaaid!” game that results. Yes, they do. Civil courts are full of almost nothing besides "but you said" games. You're just describing the status quo of how law works.
  - ceejayoz 3y ago
    No; “fraud” is illegal. They don’t have to specifically list each of the different possible techniques somewhere. Same with securities. The Howey test exists. The courts and Congress occasionally find a tweak that needs making, but they aren’t likely to be impressed by shenanigans like “oh it isn’t a shared enterprise because of this cute quirky thing”.
    - everfree 3y ago
      So according to you, following the SEC's lead: Selling Bitcoin is legal, selling Solana is illegal, and selling ETH (Ethereum) is in a quasi-state of legal and illegal. Nobody knows exactly why any of this is the case, and that's totally fine with you because you don't want to dive into any of these "cute quirky things".
      - ceejayoz 3y ago
        They've explained their reasoning in various spots. For example: https://www.axios.com/2022/06/28/bitcoin-is-the-only-coin-the-sec-chair-will-call-a-commodity https://www.axios.com/2022/06/28/bitcoin-is-the-only-coin-th... > Elsewhere in the speech, Hinman explained: "If the network on which [a] token or coin is to function is sufficiently decentralized — where purchasers would no longer reasonably expect a person or group to carry out essential managerial or entrepreneurial efforts — the assets may not represent an investment contract."
        lmm 3y ago
        "Sufficiently...may..." but even the SEC themselves will not tell you whether Ethereum qualifies or not. That is not rule of law.
        ceejayoz 3y ago
        Sure it is. The SEC alleges a violation of the law. The courts decide if they are right at trial. Eth is fairly uniquely complicated by the fact that it probably went from security to commodity before they could get smacked for the security period.
wbl 3y ago
They already did. Bitcoin doesn't involve an expectation of profit from a common enterprise while e.g. liquidity tokens do.

ceejayoz 3y ago

> I don't agree that a regulatory agency saying "hint hint time to register" for years on end is an effective way to regulate. Nah, the alternative is why cops get away with everything via qualified immunity. Conmen don’t get given a pat list of what is and isn’t allowed; no one wants to play the “but you saaaaaaid!” game that results.

everfree 3y ago
> Conmen don’t get given a pat list of what is and isn’t allowed; no one wants to play the “but you saaaaaaid!” game that results. Yes, they do. Civil courts are full of almost nothing besides "but you said" games. You're just describing the status quo of how law works.
- ceejayoz 3y ago
  No; “fraud” is illegal. They don’t have to specifically list each of the different possible techniques somewhere. Same with securities. The Howey test exists. The courts and Congress occasionally find a tweak that needs making, but they aren’t likely to be impressed by shenanigans like “oh it isn’t a shared enterprise because of this cute quirky thing”.
  - everfree 3y ago
    So according to you, following the SEC's lead: Selling Bitcoin is legal, selling Solana is illegal, and selling ETH (Ethereum) is in a quasi-state of legal and illegal. Nobody knows exactly why any of this is the case, and that's totally fine with you because you don't want to dive into any of these "cute quirky things".
    - ceejayoz 3y ago
      They've explained their reasoning in various spots. For example: https://www.axios.com/2022/06/28/bitcoin-is-the-only-coin-the-sec-chair-will-call-a-commodity https://www.axios.com/2022/06/28/bitcoin-is-the-only-coin-th... > Elsewhere in the speech, Hinman explained: "If the network on which [a] token or coin is to function is sufficiently decentralized — where purchasers would no longer reasonably expect a person or group to carry out essential managerial or entrepreneurial efforts — the assets may not represent an investment contract."
      - lmm 3y ago
        "Sufficiently...may..." but even the SEC themselves will not tell you whether Ethereum qualifies or not. That is not rule of law.
        ceejayoz 3y ago
        Sure it is. The SEC alleges a violation of the law. The courts decide if they are right at trial. Eth is fairly uniquely complicated by the fact that it probably went from security to commodity before they could get smacked for the security period.

wbl 3y ago

They already did. Bitcoin doesn't involve an expectation of profit from a common enterprise while e.g. liquidity tokens do.