5 ms·

Interesting timing given the SEC pursuit of Coinbase.

by awb 3y ago

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
LatteLazy 3y ago
Tin Foil hat time: some crypto natives have claimed the SEC is going after Coinbase etc specifically to "clear the way" for big entrants like this (or even NYSE etc). I cannot comment but that's the theory.
- EA-3167 3y ago
  Or you know... the SEC went after Coinbase because they were nakedly criminal, and this exchange isn't. Just a thought.
  - rc_mob 3y ago
    Coinbase has been the one company in Crypto that tried very hard to never do anything illegal.
    - EA-3167 3y ago
      Except for the whole, "Unregistered securities" thing, sure.
      - WFHRenaissance 3y ago
        They've asked for guidance on registering multiple times and have been stiffed multiple times. Stop acting like a fed.
        EA-3167 3y ago
        I'm 100% with the "feds" on this one, and like most people I'm sick and tired of crypto and its empty apologists. Get a new excuse already and stop blaming other people for how shit crypto is.
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
        meepmorp 3y ago
        > They've asked for guidance on registering multiple times and have been stiffed multiple times The SEC said that most cryptocurrencies are securities. That's their guidance, and explains what they need to do - register as a securities exchange. They just don't like that answer and want a different one that suits them better.
        jrflowers 3y ago
        “It’s not a crime as long as you keep writing letters asking for clarity.” is such a cool perspective. Outside of selling unregistered securities, what other criminal activity enjoys the “But I asked about it!” defense?
        FireBeyond 3y ago
        No, they've released press releases about this many times. When it came to their actual court filings, when it's time to put your money where your mouth is, they ... didn't really say much about a lack of guidance: > We disagree that the majority of digital assets are securities. For those digital assets that are securities, registration under the current rules is, for many market participants, either not possible or not economically viable given the associated and unnecessary compliance burdens i.e. "it's too much work, and/or not profitable for us". The SEC isn't obligated to make securities/commodities trading profitable for exchanges.
      - PaywallBuster 3y ago
        and front running retail with insider information
      - TacticalCoder 3y ago
        Then why did the SEC allow Coinbase to go public? They were already allowing to trade what the SEC now considers securities back then.
    - helsinkiandrew 3y ago
      Apart from running a non SEC registered exchange for what the SEC thinks are securities.
      - mktmkrsall 3y ago
        Did the exchange work with regulators to get required approval before listing the asset? Which of the assets listed were not reviewed and approved by *every* state in which said exchanges operate?
        mktmkrsall 3y ago
        Is there any contract for future performance? If there is no contract for future performance, can there be a securities contract? Is this correct?: If there is no written contract, the state and defendants may refer to Statute of Frauds. (If there is no written contract for future performance valued at greater than like $500, defendant can motion to dismiss due to Statute of Frauds?). Do the States and the SEC have any statuory duty to provide `def is_a_security(asset) -> bool` service; wherein securities are assessed according to the Howey Test and other case law pertaining to what constitutes a securities contract? Or only after 40+ states (n exchanges per asset per state) have reviewed each asset for list?
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - CPLX 3y ago
      They've tried very hard to create that narrative. While breaking the law.
      - NotYourLawyer 3y ago
        SBF was good at cultivating exactly that reputation too.
    - NotYourLawyer 3y ago
      They try harder than the outright scams, sure. The SEC doesn’t think they’re trying hard enough though.
  - scottiebarnes 3y ago
    The same SEC that reviewed Coinbase's prospectus and business model and decided that they could become a legal publicly traded company in the US?
    - quickthrowman 3y ago
      The SEC doesn’t consider a firm’s business model when it goes public. The SEC does make sure that they’re making the necessary disclosures and providing audited financial statements. The initial registration form is Form S-1. One of the things you disclose in Form S-1 is the risks your firm faces that may affect its valuation. Coinbase disclosed the following risks in their Form S-1 SEC filing [0]: > 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. > As we continue to expand and localize our international activities, our obligations to comply with the laws, rules, regulations, and policies of a variety of jurisdictions will increase and we may be subject to investigations and enforcement actions by regulators and governmental authorities. Coinbase was acutely aware of the risk that their business may not exactly be legal, they disclosed it in their initial SEC filing. It’s not the SEC’s job to tell Coinbase that what they’re doing might not be legal, it’s up to Coinbase to hire lawyers to advise them. [0] https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1679788/000162828021003168/coinbaseglobalincs-1.htm https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1679788/000162828021...
  - LatteLazy 3y ago
    That's fine but then they will surely go after this entity too, since it is doing the exact same thing (running an unlicensed exchange in something the SEC has deemed a security)...
- spamizbad 3y ago
  Coinbase is the "big entrant". They were backed by a ton of deep-pocketed VCs that are tied up with dizzing array of powerful LPs that range from government pensions to sovereign wealth funds. It then went public and is now probably tied up in everything.
  - TacticalCoder 3y ago
    > It then went public... Which the SEC allowed, despite Coinbase back then already allowing to trade what the SEC now considers securities. A weird thing. > ... and is now probably tied up in everything BlackRock (10 trillion assets under management) is launching a Bitcoin ETF. With the Bitcoin backing the ETF to be held in custody at Coinbase. That's a big one I think.
fnordpiglet 3y ago
EDX doesn’t touch retail money. Retail money is radioactive. By taking general public money you open yourself up to all sorts of high bar scrutiny.

Interesting timing given the SEC pursuit of Coinbase.

by awb 3y ago

Interesting timing given the SEC pursuit of Coinbase.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

LatteLazy 3y ago

Tin Foil hat time: some crypto natives have claimed the SEC is going after Coinbase etc specifically to "clear the way" for big entrants like this (or even NYSE etc). I cannot comment but that's the theory.

EA-3167 3y ago
Or you know... the SEC went after Coinbase because they were nakedly criminal, and this exchange isn't. Just a thought.
- rc_mob 3y ago
  Coinbase has been the one company in Crypto that tried very hard to never do anything illegal.
  - EA-3167 3y ago
    Except for the whole, "Unregistered securities" thing, sure.
    - WFHRenaissance 3y ago
      They've asked for guidance on registering multiple times and have been stiffed multiple times. Stop acting like a fed.
      - EA-3167 3y ago
        I'm 100% with the "feds" on this one, and like most people I'm sick and tired of crypto and its empty apologists. Get a new excuse already and stop blaming other people for how shit crypto is.
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      - meepmorp 3y ago
        > They've asked for guidance on registering multiple times and have been stiffed multiple times The SEC said that most cryptocurrencies are securities. That's their guidance, and explains what they need to do - register as a securities exchange. They just don't like that answer and want a different one that suits them better.
      - jrflowers 3y ago
        “It’s not a crime as long as you keep writing letters asking for clarity.” is such a cool perspective. Outside of selling unregistered securities, what other criminal activity enjoys the “But I asked about it!” defense?
      - FireBeyond 3y ago
        No, they've released press releases about this many times. When it came to their actual court filings, when it's time to put your money where your mouth is, they ... didn't really say much about a lack of guidance: > We disagree that the majority of digital assets are securities. For those digital assets that are securities, registration under the current rules is, for many market participants, either not possible or not economically viable given the associated and unnecessary compliance burdens i.e. "it's too much work, and/or not profitable for us". The SEC isn't obligated to make securities/commodities trading profitable for exchanges.
    - PaywallBuster 3y ago
      and front running retail with insider information
    - TacticalCoder 3y ago
      Then why did the SEC allow Coinbase to go public? They were already allowing to trade what the SEC now considers securities back then.
  - helsinkiandrew 3y ago
    Apart from running a non SEC registered exchange for what the SEC thinks are securities.
    - mktmkrsall 3y ago
      Did the exchange work with regulators to get required approval before listing the asset? Which of the assets listed were not reviewed and approved by *every* state in which said exchanges operate?
      - mktmkrsall 3y ago
        Is there any contract for future performance? If there is no contract for future performance, can there be a securities contract? Is this correct?: If there is no written contract, the state and defendants may refer to Statute of Frauds. (If there is no written contract for future performance valued at greater than like $500, defendant can motion to dismiss due to Statute of Frauds?). Do the States and the SEC have any statuory duty to provide `def is_a_security(asset) -> bool` service; wherein securities are assessed according to the Howey Test and other case law pertaining to what constitutes a securities contract? Or only after 40+ states (n exchanges per asset per state) have reviewed each asset for list?
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - CPLX 3y ago
    They've tried very hard to create that narrative. While breaking the law.
    - NotYourLawyer 3y ago
      SBF was good at cultivating exactly that reputation too.
  - NotYourLawyer 3y ago
    They try harder than the outright scams, sure. The SEC doesn’t think they’re trying hard enough though.
- scottiebarnes 3y ago
  The same SEC that reviewed Coinbase's prospectus and business model and decided that they could become a legal publicly traded company in the US?
  - quickthrowman 3y ago
    The SEC doesn’t consider a firm’s business model when it goes public. The SEC does make sure that they’re making the necessary disclosures and providing audited financial statements. The initial registration form is Form S-1. One of the things you disclose in Form S-1 is the risks your firm faces that may affect its valuation. Coinbase disclosed the following risks in their Form S-1 SEC filing [0]: > 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. > As we continue to expand and localize our international activities, our obligations to comply with the laws, rules, regulations, and policies of a variety of jurisdictions will increase and we may be subject to investigations and enforcement actions by regulators and governmental authorities. Coinbase was acutely aware of the risk that their business may not exactly be legal, they disclosed it in their initial SEC filing. It’s not the SEC’s job to tell Coinbase that what they’re doing might not be legal, it’s up to Coinbase to hire lawyers to advise them. [0] https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1679788/000162828021003168/coinbaseglobalincs-1.htm https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1679788/000162828021...
- LatteLazy 3y ago
  That's fine but then they will surely go after this entity too, since it is doing the exact same thing (running an unlicensed exchange in something the SEC has deemed a security)...
spamizbad 3y ago
Coinbase is the "big entrant". They were backed by a ton of deep-pocketed VCs that are tied up with dizzing array of powerful LPs that range from government pensions to sovereign wealth funds. It then went public and is now probably tied up in everything.
- TacticalCoder 3y ago
  > It then went public... Which the SEC allowed, despite Coinbase back then already allowing to trade what the SEC now considers securities. A weird thing. > ... and is now probably tied up in everything BlackRock (10 trillion assets under management) is launching a Bitcoin ETF. With the Bitcoin backing the ETF to be held in custody at Coinbase. That's a big one I think.

fnordpiglet 3y ago

EDX doesn’t touch retail money. Retail money is radioactive. By taking general public money you open yourself up to all sorts of high bar scrutiny.