4 ms·

That's a nice ad hominem attack you've made there, but it isn't actually unreasonable to argue that Bitcoin and certain other currencies like it are not securit

by smeej 2y ago

That's a nice ad hominem attack you've made there, but it isn't actually unreasonable to argue that Bitcoin and certain other currencies like it are not securities. Heck, even the SEC has said as much. It's even more reasonable to argue that things like NFTs are more like digital baseball cards than securities.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> it isn't actually unreasonable to argue that Bitcoin and certain other currencies like it are not securities It’s not. But it’s clear the industry needs supervision, and it isn’t really worth the time drafting federal legislation. The SEC keeping the most egregious behaviour checked, e.g. policing positioning with retail investors, is the best worst option for now.
- smeej 2y ago
  The CFTC seems to think it would be perfectly competent to handle the situation too. I don't think the only options are federal legislation or the (allegedly) overreaching SEC.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > CFTC seems to think it would be perfectly competent to handle the situation too The way these businesses are run, it probably does too. A good amount of effort in finance goes into avoiding unneeded regulatory duplication. But if you’re a you’re a bank you get both the FDIC and SEC, a public drug manufacturer the SEC and FDA; if you’re selling crypto through your brokerage app, the SEC and CFTC.
    - smeej 2y ago
      Perhaps at the level of exchanges, sure, but for each individual token, it can't be both a commodity and a security at the same time, and the CFTC and SEC keep stepping on each other's toes.
      - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > it can't be both a commodity and a security at the same time Why not? Mixed swaps are dual regulated, for instance [1]. [1] https://katten.com/CFTC-SEC-Finalize-Swap-Product-Definitions https://katten.com/CFTC-SEC-Finalize-Swap-Product-Definition...
- robbyiq999 2y ago
  Centralized exchanges need supervision, they have the history of doing the most harm. Look at Mt Gox and FTX
  - smeej 2y ago
    The things Mt Gox and FTX did were already criminal. If they didn't follow those regulations, what makes you think they'd follow any others?
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > If they didn't follow those regulations, what makes you think they'd follow any others? The point is enforcement. We ban weapons in some areas despite murder being illegal.
      - smeej 2y ago
        I guess that opens a whole different can of worms in the discussion, because I actually think that supports my point, that it sounds like a good idea but doesn't actually accomplish anything positive. All it ends up doing is hamstringing the companies that do want to do things the right way, because they can't compete with the companies who are snubbing all the rules anyway. Anyone who was working at Coinbase during the rise of Binance or FTX can tell you everybody knew they were playing outside the rules. Once you know how hard it is to do things right, it's easy to see when some upstart flies in and starts gobbling up market share that they're cutting corners. It took 7 years for Binance and CZ to get fined like they finally did. FTX might even still be operating if SBF hadn't panicked and filed for bankruptcy. Riding those guys out was one of Coinbase's major challenges, and competitors who didn't have established market share and teams couldn't even effectively enter the market and compete with those players. Regulation often sounds like a good idea to honest people, but it doesn't account for the reality that many people don't care at all about playing by anybody else's rules.
ToucanLoucan 2y ago
I don't think that's an ad-hominem attack at all. The entire point of crypocurrency from jump was to escape the "reckless inflation/deflation of fiat currency", fiat currency meaning state-sponsored currency. The goal was to create an object that would hold value outside the traditional financial sector, similar to things like gold. I think the only real problem is that the crypto community took the several decades of the various governments world-wide not giving a shit about their $0.0004 coins as admission by those governments that they were beyond regulation and not, as would be a far simpler explanation, not worth their time to regulate. And once it was worth their time, it was regulated. To be clear, I don't know or really care if these stupid things are securities or what. But I do know that you're going to need a lot better of an argument than an "um actshually" to get the Feds off your ass. Y'all went and achieved your dream: a parallel financial system. Now Uncle Sam's comin' to get his cut.
- j0hnyl 2y ago
  Uncle Sam getting his cut is not what's being contested though when it comes to the securities conversation.
- FabHK 2y ago
  > The goal was to create an object that would hold value outside the traditional financial sector, similar to things like gold. Agree with most of your comment, just to say that this was not the goal as originally described by Nakamoto, but rather an ex-post justification for crypto when it blatantly failed in reaching the specific goals it set out to achieve.
lenerdenator 2y ago
The thing that sold many people on the idea of crypto was that in their minds, government couldn't regulate it or use a central bank to impact its value. I'm not sure why they thought this (maybe "because computers") but one way (through securities or commodities laws) or the other (new legislation), they're going to regulate it.

by smeej 2y ago

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> it isn't actually unreasonable to argue that Bitcoin and certain other currencies like it are not securities It’s not. But it’s clear the industry needs supervision, and it isn’t really worth the time drafting federal legislation. The SEC keeping the most egregious behaviour checked, e.g. policing positioning with retail investors, is the best worst option for now.

smeej 2y ago
The CFTC seems to think it would be perfectly competent to handle the situation too. I don't think the only options are federal legislation or the (allegedly) overreaching SEC.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > CFTC seems to think it would be perfectly competent to handle the situation too The way these businesses are run, it probably does too. A good amount of effort in finance goes into avoiding unneeded regulatory duplication. But if you’re a you’re a bank you get both the FDIC and SEC, a public drug manufacturer the SEC and FDA; if you’re selling crypto through your brokerage app, the SEC and CFTC.
  - smeej 2y ago
    Perhaps at the level of exchanges, sure, but for each individual token, it can't be both a commodity and a security at the same time, and the CFTC and SEC keep stepping on each other's toes.
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > it can't be both a commodity and a security at the same time Why not? Mixed swaps are dual regulated, for instance [1]. [1] https://katten.com/CFTC-SEC-Finalize-Swap-Product-Definitions https://katten.com/CFTC-SEC-Finalize-Swap-Product-Definition...
robbyiq999 2y ago
Centralized exchanges need supervision, they have the history of doing the most harm. Look at Mt Gox and FTX
- smeej 2y ago
  The things Mt Gox and FTX did were already criminal. If they didn't follow those regulations, what makes you think they'd follow any others?
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > If they didn't follow those regulations, what makes you think they'd follow any others? The point is enforcement. We ban weapons in some areas despite murder being illegal.
    - smeej 2y ago
      I guess that opens a whole different can of worms in the discussion, because I actually think that supports my point, that it sounds like a good idea but doesn't actually accomplish anything positive. All it ends up doing is hamstringing the companies that do want to do things the right way, because they can't compete with the companies who are snubbing all the rules anyway. Anyone who was working at Coinbase during the rise of Binance or FTX can tell you everybody knew they were playing outside the rules. Once you know how hard it is to do things right, it's easy to see when some upstart flies in and starts gobbling up market share that they're cutting corners. It took 7 years for Binance and CZ to get fined like they finally did. FTX might even still be operating if SBF hadn't panicked and filed for bankruptcy. Riding those guys out was one of Coinbase's major challenges, and competitors who didn't have established market share and teams couldn't even effectively enter the market and compete with those players. Regulation often sounds like a good idea to honest people, but it doesn't account for the reality that many people don't care at all about playing by anybody else's rules.

ToucanLoucan 2y ago

I don't think that's an ad-hominem attack at all. The entire point of crypocurrency from jump was to escape the "reckless inflation/deflation of fiat currency", fiat currency meaning state-sponsored currency. The goal was to create an object that would hold value outside the traditional financial sector, similar to things like gold. I think the only real problem is that the crypto community took the several decades of the various governments world-wide not giving a shit about their $0.0004 coins as admission by those governments that they were beyond regulation and not, as would be a far simpler explanation, not worth their time to regulate. And once it was worth their time, it was regulated. To be clear, I don't know or really care if these stupid things are securities or what. But I do know that you're going to need a lot better of an argument than an "um actshually" to get the Feds off your ass. Y'all went and achieved your dream: a parallel financial system. Now Uncle Sam's comin' to get his cut.

j0hnyl 2y ago
Uncle Sam getting his cut is not what's being contested though when it comes to the securities conversation.
FabHK 2y ago
> The goal was to create an object that would hold value outside the traditional financial sector, similar to things like gold. Agree with most of your comment, just to say that this was not the goal as originally described by Nakamoto, but rather an ex-post justification for crypto when it blatantly failed in reaching the specific goals it set out to achieve.

lenerdenator 2y ago

The thing that sold many people on the idea of crypto was that in their minds, government couldn't regulate it or use a central bank to impact its value. I'm not sure why they thought this (maybe "because computers") but one way (through securities or commodities laws) or the other (new legislation), they're going to regulate it.