4 ms·

Always a bit confusing since reddit has admins and moderators, and they are very different. Admins are reddit employees, moderators are just random people who r

Always a bit confusing since reddit has admins and moderators, and they are very different. Admins are reddit employees, moderators are just random people who run a specific subreddit. So if I understand correctly, this was a site level feature, and admins gave a 1h heads up to the moderators of the specific subreddits using that feature, allowing the moderators to sell early. Wouldn't the blame here be more on the admins? Is there a reason this "heads up" was secretly only given to mods, and not just announced publicly right away?

chris_wot 3y ago
In a regulated securities market, this would be considered insider information, and this could lead to jail time.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > In a regulated securities market, this would be considered insider information, and this could lead to jail time Per the SEC's definition (and thus prevailing law of the land), this is already illegal insider trading. That said, it's a low enforcement priority, largely on account of the victims being unsympathetic.
  - bsamuels 3y ago
    > largely on account of the victims being unsympathetic. the crass bullshit that people on HN say astounds me every day. the victims here are literally the people who need protecting the most
    - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
      > the victims here are literally the people who need protecting the most If you look at my comment history, you'll see I'm for enforcement. When I've advocated for it, this is what I've been told: crypto enthusiasts aren't a sympathetic victim block. That leads to reduced enforcement when they're the victims. When it's regular folk, like those depositing with Gemini Earn, we get enforcement. Same reason we don't see enforcement against dealers of adulterated illegal drugs in respect of their adulteration. The victims aren't sympathetic.
      - philistine 3y ago
        If you’re for enforcement, you should be appalled at this answer. According to non-crazy metrics, up to 13% of Americans held crypto currencies at some point. Don’t tell me 13% of all Americans don’t deserve enforcement at least of the rules by which crypto currencies should operate. I’m not asking for the moon here.
  - fallingknife 3y ago
    The SEC's definition has been taking major Ls in court and is in no way "the law of the land."
    - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
      > is in no way "the law of the land." Yes, it is. Some parties are trying to have it struck down. That hasn’t happened yet.
      - fallingknife 3y ago
        You are incorrect. The only time that the SEC has been to court on the issue of that definition, the court ruled against them. The SEC does not have the power to determine what is a security anyway. That rests with statutory law and court precedent.
- erik_seaberg 3y ago
  It's orders of magnitude too expensive to build anything like this in a regulated securities market. Even IPOs are being delayed until established companies can sustain today's enormous compliance costs.
  - pas 3y ago
    it's definitely not free, but unlikely to be prohibitively expensive https://www.startupblog.com/sec-approves-token-sale-through-regulation-a/ https://www.startupblog.com/sec-approves-token-sale-through-...

chris_wot 3y ago

In a regulated securities market, this would be considered insider information, and this could lead to jail time.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> In a regulated securities market, this would be considered insider information, and this could lead to jail time Per the SEC's definition (and thus prevailing law of the land), this is already illegal insider trading. That said, it's a low enforcement priority, largely on account of the victims being unsympathetic.
- bsamuels 3y ago
  > largely on account of the victims being unsympathetic. the crass bullshit that people on HN say astounds me every day. the victims here are literally the people who need protecting the most
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > the victims here are literally the people who need protecting the most If you look at my comment history, you'll see I'm for enforcement. When I've advocated for it, this is what I've been told: crypto enthusiasts aren't a sympathetic victim block. That leads to reduced enforcement when they're the victims. When it's regular folk, like those depositing with Gemini Earn, we get enforcement. Same reason we don't see enforcement against dealers of adulterated illegal drugs in respect of their adulteration. The victims aren't sympathetic.
    - philistine 3y ago
      If you’re for enforcement, you should be appalled at this answer. According to non-crazy metrics, up to 13% of Americans held crypto currencies at some point. Don’t tell me 13% of all Americans don’t deserve enforcement at least of the rules by which crypto currencies should operate. I’m not asking for the moon here.
- fallingknife 3y ago
  The SEC's definition has been taking major Ls in court and is in no way "the law of the land."
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > is in no way "the law of the land." Yes, it is. Some parties are trying to have it struck down. That hasn’t happened yet.
    - fallingknife 3y ago
      You are incorrect. The only time that the SEC has been to court on the issue of that definition, the court ruled against them. The SEC does not have the power to determine what is a security anyway. That rests with statutory law and court precedent.
erik_seaberg 3y ago
It's orders of magnitude too expensive to build anything like this in a regulated securities market. Even IPOs are being delayed until established companies can sustain today's enormous compliance costs.
- pas 3y ago
  it's definitely not free, but unlikely to be prohibitively expensive https://www.startupblog.com/sec-approves-token-sale-through-regulation-a/ https://www.startupblog.com/sec-approves-token-sale-through-...