5 ms·

She's comparing cryptocurrency to heroin. The parent's point stands.

Dylan16807 3y ago
It's not "alarmist nonsense", it's just an example of something illegal. And it's not "cryptocurrency" being compared to illegal things, but unregistered security cryptocurrencies. Bitcoin, the biggest name in cryptocurrency, is fine.
- iterativ 3y ago
  Yes well, some claim it's "securities", there is no clear law for that. Can I give you, for example, Amazon shared and get a coffee or a pizza ? Directly, not liquidate it first. Let's find out how the Ripple lawsuit is going to end, there is good chance to win it. The woke up one day and they "hey this crypto is a threat to our dollar'. Gensler said "we don't need any more digital currencies, we have USD, EUR, YEN". And that for centuries there was no need to transfer value through more than one medium. That can explain their views clearly.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > Can I give you, for example, Amazon shared and get a coffee or a pizza ? Directly, not liquidate it first. No, this is specifically addressed by securities law. It's not impossible, but you have to do it properly.
    - ethanbond 3y ago
      what’s next, are you going to tell me that I can’t realize millions of dollars in crypto gains without paying income tax? Inconceivable!
      - hef19898 3y ago
        You mean tax avoidance ain't legal??? Outrageous!
paulddraper 3y ago
The article's comparison is made on potential legality. Reading the comment, you'd think the comparison was on harm or lethality.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
nl 3y ago
She's making the point that for some products there might not ever be a path to compliance. Heroin is an example here because it's really clear what would happen.
smeagull 3y ago
It was a valid rhetorical comparison about their business model. The parent wasn't able to read it properly, and just knee jerked their response.
JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> comparing cryptocurrency to heroin Which is damn smart given we let regulated persons manufacture and distribute opiates. In this analogy, Coinbase is upset its heroin sales are illegal when a licensed pharmacist can sell a similar product. If someone is having a strong emotional reaction, substitute any regulated product—jumbo jets, vodka, legal advice—and move on.
- Linosaurus 3y ago
  > In this analogy, Coinbase is upset its heroin sales are illegal when a licensed pharmacist can sell a similar product. In this analogy Coinbase' story seems to be that they asked how to apply to become a licensed pharmacist, but never got an answer. While the SEC suggests they never tried. This gets confusing when the crime is phrased as unregistered heroin sales.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > Coinbase' story seems to be that they asked how to apply to become a licensed pharmacist, but never got an answer. While the SEC suggests they never tried They got an answer they didn't like: they'd have to change how they did business. (Also, what they list. The SEC issued The DAO Report in 2017.) We enacted the '34 Exchange Act in part to segregate the broker, exchange and custodial functions of securities trading. Coinbase was asking how to become a licensed pharmacist without having to check prescriptions. > gets confusing when the crime is phrased as unregistered heroin sales Try "opiate." Coinbase thought they found something new, and asked if it was okay. They didn't think they got a clear answer and proceeded. Now they're crying foul at the lack of prior guidance, or that someone else does have a license. The author's point is that these arguments don't make sense. There may be other arguments that do, but these aren't among them.
Scarblac 3y ago
No, it's just hyperbole. Using a much more extreme example to make the point (that companies don't automatically have a right to a path to compliance) obvious.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
handsclean 3y ago
I think I’ve run into this misunderstanding in my own conversations. The problem is that there are two different lines of reasoning that can look very similar: A: You say “Z is true of X”, and I respond “Z is false for thing-like-X”, implying “Z is likely false for X”. B: You say “Z is true”, and I respond “Z is false for Y”, implying not “Y is like X therefore Z is likely false”, but “Z is sometimes false, so we need to actually evaluate whether it’s true of X”. I think people who use this reasoning would do well to make it more explicit. (Here, Z is “there must be a path to compliance”, X is Coinbase, and Y – not, I believe, thing-like-X – is heroin.)
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

It's not "alarmist nonsense", it's just an example of something illegal. And it's not "cryptocurrency" being compared to illegal things, but unregistered security cryptocurrencies. Bitcoin, the biggest name in cryptocurrency, is fine.

iterativ 3y ago
Yes well, some claim it's "securities", there is no clear law for that. Can I give you, for example, Amazon shared and get a coffee or a pizza ? Directly, not liquidate it first. Let's find out how the Ripple lawsuit is going to end, there is good chance to win it. The woke up one day and they "hey this crypto is a threat to our dollar'. Gensler said "we don't need any more digital currencies, we have USD, EUR, YEN". And that for centuries there was no need to transfer value through more than one medium. That can explain their views clearly.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > Can I give you, for example, Amazon shared and get a coffee or a pizza ? Directly, not liquidate it first. No, this is specifically addressed by securities law. It's not impossible, but you have to do it properly.
  - ethanbond 3y ago
    what’s next, are you going to tell me that I can’t realize millions of dollars in crypto gains without paying income tax? Inconceivable!
    - hef19898 3y ago
      You mean tax avoidance ain't legal??? Outrageous!

paulddraper 3y ago

The article's comparison is made on potential legality. Reading the comment, you'd think the comparison was on harm or lethality.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

nl 3y ago

She's making the point that for some products there might not ever be a path to compliance. Heroin is an example here because it's really clear what would happen.

smeagull 3y ago

It was a valid rhetorical comparison about their business model. The parent wasn't able to read it properly, and just knee jerked their response.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago

> comparing cryptocurrency to heroin Which is damn smart given we let regulated persons manufacture and distribute opiates. In this analogy, Coinbase is upset its heroin sales are illegal when a licensed pharmacist can sell a similar product. If someone is having a strong emotional reaction, substitute any regulated product—jumbo jets, vodka, legal advice—and move on.

Linosaurus 3y ago
> In this analogy, Coinbase is upset its heroin sales are illegal when a licensed pharmacist can sell a similar product. In this analogy Coinbase' story seems to be that they asked how to apply to become a licensed pharmacist, but never got an answer. While the SEC suggests they never tried. This gets confusing when the crime is phrased as unregistered heroin sales.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > Coinbase' story seems to be that they asked how to apply to become a licensed pharmacist, but never got an answer. While the SEC suggests they never tried They got an answer they didn't like: they'd have to change how they did business. (Also, what they list. The SEC issued The DAO Report in 2017.) We enacted the '34 Exchange Act in part to segregate the broker, exchange and custodial functions of securities trading. Coinbase was asking how to become a licensed pharmacist without having to check prescriptions. > gets confusing when the crime is phrased as unregistered heroin sales Try "opiate." Coinbase thought they found something new, and asked if it was okay. They didn't think they got a clear answer and proceeded. Now they're crying foul at the lack of prior guidance, or that someone else does have a license. The author's point is that these arguments don't make sense. There may be other arguments that do, but these aren't among them.

Scarblac 3y ago

No, it's just hyperbole. Using a much more extreme example to make the point (that companies don't automatically have a right to a path to compliance) obvious.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

handsclean 3y ago

I think I’ve run into this misunderstanding in my own conversations. The problem is that there are two different lines of reasoning that can look very similar: A: You say “Z is true of X”, and I respond “Z is false for thing-like-X”, implying “Z is likely false for X”. B: You say “Z is true”, and I respond “Z is false for Y”, implying not “Y is like X therefore Z is likely false”, but “Z is sometimes false, so we need to actually evaluate whether it’s true of X”. I think people who use this reasoning would do well to make it more explicit. (Here, Z is “there must be a path to compliance”, X is Coinbase, and Y – not, I believe, thing-like-X – is heroin.)

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]