4 ms·

Didn’t nearly all main SEC personnel publicly say that Ethereum is not a security? Hinman and SEC pushing him to say it: https://blockworks.co/news/sec-hinman-

by EGreg 3y ago

Didn’t nearly all main SEC personnel publicly say that Ethereum is not a security? Hinman and SEC pushing him to say it: https://blockworks.co/news/sec-hinman-eth-not-security https://blockworks.co/news/sec-hinman-eth-not-security SEC chair Gary Gensler: https://decrypt.co/138334/gary-gensler-sec-ethereum-not-security-mit-2018?amp=1 https://decrypt.co/138334/gary-gensler-sec-ethereum-not-secu... SEC prev chair Jay Clayton: https://finance.yahoo.com/amphtml/news/us-sec-chairman-jay-clayton-175300070.html https://finance.yahoo.com/amphtml/news/us-sec-chairman-jay-c... Hester Pierce “crypto mom” ironically has never explicitly stated a position on Ethereum What are they going to do now, backtrack on their own public statements?

whaleofatw2022 3y ago
I will note on top of what other commenters have said to this, that most (all?) Of those statements were made before Ethereum went to Proof Of Stake, which has implications for centralization and control.
saurik 3y ago
They might believe their prior statements on the matter no longer apply since the transition to proof-of-stake? (I am not saying this is a good argument, but it is one I think I have seen people come up with.)
- junofan 3y ago
  Yeah but their whole thing is that the specifics of the technology don’t change how securities laws apply. They’d likely claim both the miners and the stakers need to form an organization and have somebody responsible for compliance, if their proposed rules on altering the exchange definition is any indication.
McAtNite 3y ago
I’ve have the unpleasant task of interacting with auditors from the SEC regularly in a heavily regulated industry. Trying to get any sort of real, factual guidelines from them is a fool’s errand. Their auditors views and interpretations vary wildly year to year, and they will not provide any written guidelines for their positions. Instead they insist it’s up to the discretion of the individual auditor. I’ve seen fairly reserved people in screaming matches by the end of it all, and concessions will eventually be made which seems strange for a regulatory body to do. All that is that say, they won’t backtrack on anything. They’ll simply say that those were the views of those people as individuals, and they are not reflective of the official stance of the regulatory body.
- hsjqllzlfkf 3y ago
  I'm not doubting anything you're saying, but are there examples of such problematic behaviors in the public record?
  - rhaway84773 3y ago
    The entire cryptocurrency space is filled with genuine grifters and conmen. It’s absolutely reasonable to doubt anyone making unsubstantiated and unverifiable claims in this space.
    - hsjqllzlfkf 3y ago
      When I said problematic behavior, I was referring to this: > Their auditors views and interpretations vary wildly year to year, and they will not provide any written guidelines for their positions. That's why I started with the disclaimer that "yes I know crypto it's a scam", but the regulators also seem to be making it difficult to stay compliant.
  - McAtNite 3y ago
    Public record being official statements from business or government entities? I’m not aware of any personally. Really I feel like I should clarify the above since I wrote it pretty late at night, and it I don’t think I really summed the experience up well. Another commenter mentioned their experience with other regulatory bodies that really cuts closer to what I intended to say: “While I have no experience in dealing with the SEC, I do in dealing with EASA and SOX audits. One common theme, both give you the barebone rules as written, and it is up to you to figure out how to follow them.” That really is my entire complaint. The grey area of what “counts” according to an auditor will vary over time, and what might count one year will suddenly be inadequate the next or vice versa.
- whoknowswhat11 3y ago
  Ha! So true. And there would be huge savings if they would both simplify things and focus much harder on substance
misnome 3y ago
Ah, once again, the "No Backsies of informal statements" law. Note that all of these are a long time ago, and even if their offhand opinions were legally binding the "strongest" of these articles > had stated in a speech that ETH “in its present state” — as opposed to during its distribution via initial coin offering (ICO) — won’t be regulated as a security. > Chairman Clayton noted that he agrees that a digital asset’s definition as a security is “not static” and thus can change over time. Things have obviously changed. Also, the way Ethereum works has changed.
JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> Didn’t nearly all main SEC personnel publicly say that Ethereum is not a security? No. Your first article cites Gensler's statements from 2018; he took the helm at the SEC in 2021 [1]. The second somehow draws conclusions from a letter Clayton wrote "without ever mentioning ETH directly" [2]. > What are they going to do now, backtrack on their own public statements Moot point. When the SEC sued Coinbase, it didn't mention Ethereum. This entire line of argument is a red herring. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Gensler https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Gensler [2] https://finance.yahoo.com/news/us-sec-chairman-jay-clayton-175300070.html https://finance.yahoo.com/news/us-sec-chairman-jay-clayton-1...

by EGreg 3y ago

whaleofatw2022 3y ago

I will note on top of what other commenters have said to this, that most (all?) Of those statements were made before Ethereum went to Proof Of Stake, which has implications for centralization and control.

saurik 3y ago

They might believe their prior statements on the matter no longer apply since the transition to proof-of-stake? (I am not saying this is a good argument, but it is one I think I have seen people come up with.)

junofan 3y ago
Yeah but their whole thing is that the specifics of the technology don’t change how securities laws apply. They’d likely claim both the miners and the stakers need to form an organization and have somebody responsible for compliance, if their proposed rules on altering the exchange definition is any indication.

McAtNite 3y ago

I’ve have the unpleasant task of interacting with auditors from the SEC regularly in a heavily regulated industry. Trying to get any sort of real, factual guidelines from them is a fool’s errand. Their auditors views and interpretations vary wildly year to year, and they will not provide any written guidelines for their positions. Instead they insist it’s up to the discretion of the individual auditor. I’ve seen fairly reserved people in screaming matches by the end of it all, and concessions will eventually be made which seems strange for a regulatory body to do. All that is that say, they won’t backtrack on anything. They’ll simply say that those were the views of those people as individuals, and they are not reflective of the official stance of the regulatory body.

hsjqllzlfkf 3y ago
I'm not doubting anything you're saying, but are there examples of such problematic behaviors in the public record?
- rhaway84773 3y ago
  The entire cryptocurrency space is filled with genuine grifters and conmen. It’s absolutely reasonable to doubt anyone making unsubstantiated and unverifiable claims in this space.
  - hsjqllzlfkf 3y ago
    When I said problematic behavior, I was referring to this: > Their auditors views and interpretations vary wildly year to year, and they will not provide any written guidelines for their positions. That's why I started with the disclaimer that "yes I know crypto it's a scam", but the regulators also seem to be making it difficult to stay compliant.
- McAtNite 3y ago
  Public record being official statements from business or government entities? I’m not aware of any personally. Really I feel like I should clarify the above since I wrote it pretty late at night, and it I don’t think I really summed the experience up well. Another commenter mentioned their experience with other regulatory bodies that really cuts closer to what I intended to say: “While I have no experience in dealing with the SEC, I do in dealing with EASA and SOX audits. One common theme, both give you the barebone rules as written, and it is up to you to figure out how to follow them.” That really is my entire complaint. The grey area of what “counts” according to an auditor will vary over time, and what might count one year will suddenly be inadequate the next or vice versa.
whoknowswhat11 3y ago
Ha! So true. And there would be huge savings if they would both simplify things and focus much harder on substance

misnome 3y ago

Ah, once again, the "No Backsies of informal statements" law. Note that all of these are a long time ago, and even if their offhand opinions were legally binding the "strongest" of these articles > had stated in a speech that ETH “in its present state” — as opposed to during its distribution via initial coin offering (ICO) — won’t be regulated as a security. > Chairman Clayton noted that he agrees that a digital asset’s definition as a security is “not static” and thus can change over time. Things have obviously changed. Also, the way Ethereum works has changed.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago

> Didn’t nearly all main SEC personnel publicly say that Ethereum is not a security? No. Your first article cites Gensler's statements from 2018; he took the helm at the SEC in 2021 [1]. The second somehow draws conclusions from a letter Clayton wrote "without ever mentioning ETH directly" [2]. > What are they going to do now, backtrack on their own public statements Moot point. When the SEC sued Coinbase, it didn't mention Ethereum. This entire line of argument is a red herring. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Gensler https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Gensler [2] https://finance.yahoo.com/news/us-sec-chairman-jay-clayton-175300070.html https://finance.yahoo.com/news/us-sec-chairman-jay-clayton-1...