3 ms·

> You made a good comment and then absolutely ruined it with your last sentence. Blanket statements like that are not only disrespectful but they’re useless. Th

> You made a good comment and then absolutely ruined it with your last sentence. Blanket statements like that are not only disrespectful but they’re useless. This isn’t Fox News…it is Hacker News. I appreciate this feedback. I like how another commenter put it: "I think there is very little room for this sequence of events to be considered fine" - from a non-crypto-partisan, rule-of-law perspective. > Second, you’re arguing they were involved in illegal activities since before going public. How do you know that for sure? Because that is what the SEC is alleging in their lawsuit.

lolinder 3y ago
> I like how another commenter put it: "I think there is very little room for this sequence of events to be considered fine" - from a non-crypto-partisan, rule-of-law perspective. I would encourage you to consider your own priors and read the feedback that you're getting on this idea as well. In spite of your attempts to cut off opposition, there are a lot of very well-reasoned arguments for the SEC's approach.
- miracle2k 3y ago
  > In spite of your attempts to cut off opposition, there are a lot of very well-reasoned arguments for the SEC's approach. Which ones do you find convincing?
  - lolinder 3y ago
    Take your pick. You've so far only replied to the people calling you out for trying to cut off discussion, not to the people who are actually taking on the claims you consider to be so ironclad. I'm personally not invested enough (or knowledgeable enough) in this topic to debate you on it, but if you're so sure of your position you'd do well to get out there and defend it.
hluska 3y ago
> Because that is what the SEC is alleging in their lawsuit. And investigations obviously take time. We don’t want a securities regulator who blindly files lawsuits against public companies. Sorry but your arguments aren’t very convincing and I really dislike crypto.
- miracle2k 3y ago
  > And investigations obviously take time. Maybe the SEC will be able to lay out in court that they have been very busy with their investigation since 2019 (the date they are alleging is the latest Coinbase started trading securities). I doubt it - but even if so, that's just not good enough. Crypto sceptics generally agree that the SEC has been asleep at the wheel. What they aren't willing to acknowledge is that there are basic, non-crypto-related due process concerns with a regulator who lets a company operate, very publically and thus with its tacit approval, for basically a decade (that is how hold this debate around securities law is) - before then deciding they don't like it after all.
  - hluska 3y ago
    I’m sorry but your third paragraph doesn’t make any sense. I can’t engage with anything like that. You seem to be arguing against the investigative process and unless you’re an actual investigator, I just don’t believe you’re qualified.
    - miracle2k 3y ago
      Your duty as a citizen is to have an opinion on the limits of power of investigators without being one.

lolinder 3y ago

> I like how another commenter put it: "I think there is very little room for this sequence of events to be considered fine" - from a non-crypto-partisan, rule-of-law perspective. I would encourage you to consider your own priors and read the feedback that you're getting on this idea as well. In spite of your attempts to cut off opposition, there are a lot of very well-reasoned arguments for the SEC's approach.

miracle2k 3y ago
> In spite of your attempts to cut off opposition, there are a lot of very well-reasoned arguments for the SEC's approach. Which ones do you find convincing?
- lolinder 3y ago
  Take your pick. You've so far only replied to the people calling you out for trying to cut off discussion, not to the people who are actually taking on the claims you consider to be so ironclad. I'm personally not invested enough (or knowledgeable enough) in this topic to debate you on it, but if you're so sure of your position you'd do well to get out there and defend it.

hluska 3y ago

> Because that is what the SEC is alleging in their lawsuit. And investigations obviously take time. We don’t want a securities regulator who blindly files lawsuits against public companies. Sorry but your arguments aren’t very convincing and I really dislike crypto.

miracle2k 3y ago
> And investigations obviously take time. Maybe the SEC will be able to lay out in court that they have been very busy with their investigation since 2019 (the date they are alleging is the latest Coinbase started trading securities). I doubt it - but even if so, that's just not good enough. Crypto sceptics generally agree that the SEC has been asleep at the wheel. What they aren't willing to acknowledge is that there are basic, non-crypto-related due process concerns with a regulator who lets a company operate, very publically and thus with its tacit approval, for basically a decade (that is how hold this debate around securities law is) - before then deciding they don't like it after all.
- hluska 3y ago
  I’m sorry but your third paragraph doesn’t make any sense. I can’t engage with anything like that. You seem to be arguing against the investigative process and unless you’re an actual investigator, I just don’t believe you’re qualified.
  - miracle2k 3y ago
    Your duty as a citizen is to have an opinion on the limits of power of investigators without being one.