7 ms·

>If you hire a lawyer and they tell you that the law is ambiguous and there isn't any relevant caselaw yet, you still have no idea if you're following the law o

>If you hire a lawyer and they tell you that the law is ambiguous and there isn't any relevant caselaw yet, you still have no idea if you're following the law or not. Then you have a couple of choices with various outcomes. One of which is exactly what is happening to Coinbase right now. You can either 100% unambiguously follow the law, or you can push your luck and adhere to what you think either is or should be the law. In the latter case you may become said case law, whether you are able to continue your current ambiguously legal business practices or not!

AnthonyMouse 3y ago
But that's ridiculously inefficient compared to just going to the regulatory agency before you do the ambiguous thing and having them clarify it. Except that they won't do it.
- bb88 3y ago
  Coinbase makes their money by working in a grey area. Why should the public subsidize (or reward) Coinbase for their shady business strategy? Why can't it be part of Coinbase's business strategy to remain on the correct side of the law and then lobby congress for changes to those laws? That's how it's been done for the past two centuries. Why change now?
  - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
    > Coinbase makes their money by working in a grey area. Why should the public subsidize large businesses in this way? Because the public through its government is what created the grey area, so it should cover the cost of its lack of clarity, as a disincentive for causing it. > Why can't it be part of Coinbase's business strategy to remain on the correct side of the law and then lobby congress for changes to those laws? The entire point is that nobody will say whether they're allowed to do this, so they can't even know if they're on the correct side of the law. How dumb is it that the only way to find out if you can legally do something is to do it without knowing whether you're allowed to? > That's how it's been done for the past two centuries. Why change now? The best time to change a bad rule is two centuries ago. The second best time is immediately.
    - bb88 3y ago
      > The entire point is that nobody will say whether they're allowed to do this, so they can't even know if they're on the correct side of the law. How dumb is it that the only way to find out if you can legally do something is to do it without knowing whether you're allowed to? Isn't that the point of hiring an attorney, or if you're Coinbase, a large team of lawyers? We don't know what Coinbase's lawyers said to them (attorney client privilege). But this could just be a legal ruse, right? Raise doubt? Even though Coinbase knew they were in a shady area and raised it in their S1 filing? Or do you think Coinbase was really this stupid and naive?
      - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
        Lawyers can tell you whether an ambiguity exists, not how it will be resolved. To find that out you have to do it and then see if you get punished, which is absurd.
        bb88 3y ago
        Or avoid operating in ambiguity altogether. It's not really that hard!

AnthonyMouse 3y ago

But that's ridiculously inefficient compared to just going to the regulatory agency before you do the ambiguous thing and having them clarify it. Except that they won't do it.

bb88 3y ago
Coinbase makes their money by working in a grey area. Why should the public subsidize (or reward) Coinbase for their shady business strategy? Why can't it be part of Coinbase's business strategy to remain on the correct side of the law and then lobby congress for changes to those laws? That's how it's been done for the past two centuries. Why change now?
- AnthonyMouse 3y ago
  > Coinbase makes their money by working in a grey area. Why should the public subsidize large businesses in this way? Because the public through its government is what created the grey area, so it should cover the cost of its lack of clarity, as a disincentive for causing it. > Why can't it be part of Coinbase's business strategy to remain on the correct side of the law and then lobby congress for changes to those laws? The entire point is that nobody will say whether they're allowed to do this, so they can't even know if they're on the correct side of the law. How dumb is it that the only way to find out if you can legally do something is to do it without knowing whether you're allowed to? > That's how it's been done for the past two centuries. Why change now? The best time to change a bad rule is two centuries ago. The second best time is immediately.
  - bb88 3y ago
    > The entire point is that nobody will say whether they're allowed to do this, so they can't even know if they're on the correct side of the law. How dumb is it that the only way to find out if you can legally do something is to do it without knowing whether you're allowed to? Isn't that the point of hiring an attorney, or if you're Coinbase, a large team of lawyers? We don't know what Coinbase's lawyers said to them (attorney client privilege). But this could just be a legal ruse, right? Raise doubt? Even though Coinbase knew they were in a shady area and raised it in their S1 filing? Or do you think Coinbase was really this stupid and naive?
    - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
      Lawyers can tell you whether an ambiguity exists, not how it will be resolved. To find that out you have to do it and then see if you get punished, which is absurd.
      - bb88 3y ago
        Or avoid operating in ambiguity altogether. It's not really that hard!