4 ms·

This article has an uncharitable framing that confuses the issue. Coinbase is arguing that the definition the SEC proposes is so broad as to define many collect

by extr 3y ago

This article has an uncharitable framing that confuses the issue. Coinbase is arguing that the definition the SEC proposes is so broad as to define many collectibles as securities as well as crypto. This is obviously not intended and so in their opinion points out a flaw in the proposed regulation.

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y ago
Honestly pretty decent arguments all around: > Coinbase lawyer William Savitt said that when a cryptocurrency is bought, the buyer doesn't gain any rights like they do when they buy stocks or bonds. > "It's the difference between buying Beanie Babies Inc. and buying Beanie Babies," Savitt argued. > ... > The SEC argued that unlike collectibles, when a crypto token is purchased, the owner is invested in the network or enterprise behind the token. > "When they buy this token, they are investing into the network behind it. One cannot be separated from the other," SEC lawyer Patrick Costello said. It doesn't look like the article specifies what "this token" is but either statement could be true, depending. If one buys Ethereum, they actually do want to see the network being used, not so much with most EC-20 tokens.
- from-nibly 3y ago
  If being "invested" in something qualifies it as being a security then buying beanie babies makes you an investor, but maybe only if you "want beanie baby values to go up?" If I buy a macbook I'm "invested" in the fact that they will send out software updates. Am I a securities holder now because I bought a laptop?
- ars 3y ago
  The "network" argument is true for collectibles as well. There is a human network of people interested in collectibles. Putting it on a computer is not a material difference.
from-nibly 3y ago
Yeah I was concerned at first until this > It's the difference between buying Beanie Babies Inc. and buying Beanie Babies
mattmaroon 3y ago
I don't think it's uncharitiable, and it was in response to a lawsuit, not regulation. It points out exactly what you said with the quote from the judge.

by extr 3y ago

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y ago

Honestly pretty decent arguments all around: > Coinbase lawyer William Savitt said that when a cryptocurrency is bought, the buyer doesn't gain any rights like they do when they buy stocks or bonds. > "It's the difference between buying Beanie Babies Inc. and buying Beanie Babies," Savitt argued. > ... > The SEC argued that unlike collectibles, when a crypto token is purchased, the owner is invested in the network or enterprise behind the token. > "When they buy this token, they are investing into the network behind it. One cannot be separated from the other," SEC lawyer Patrick Costello said. It doesn't look like the article specifies what "this token" is but either statement could be true, depending. If one buys Ethereum, they actually do want to see the network being used, not so much with most EC-20 tokens.

from-nibly 3y ago
If being "invested" in something qualifies it as being a security then buying beanie babies makes you an investor, but maybe only if you "want beanie baby values to go up?" If I buy a macbook I'm "invested" in the fact that they will send out software updates. Am I a securities holder now because I bought a laptop?
ars 3y ago
The "network" argument is true for collectibles as well. There is a human network of people interested in collectibles. Putting it on a computer is not a material difference.

from-nibly 3y ago

Yeah I was concerned at first until this > It's the difference between buying Beanie Babies Inc. and buying Beanie Babies

mattmaroon 3y ago

I don't think it's uncharitiable, and it was in response to a lawsuit, not regulation. It points out exactly what you said with the quote from the judge.