11 ms·

The title of the article on the website is misleading and actually untrue. The memo did not say “no longer targeting fraud”- it said that it was no longer targ

by efitz 1y ago

The title of the article on the website is misleading and actually untrue. The memo did not say “no longer targeting fraud”- it said that it was no longer targeting individuals and exchanges for regulatory missteps. The theme of the memo is “we’re not going to use mountains of regulations written for non-crypto regulation to go after crypto exchanges”, which is in line with a general regulatory themes of the Trump administration to avoid “lawfare” type activities and reduce regulatory burdens. In fact, the memo specifically said (according to the article, near the end) that the government would focus their efforts on fraud against crypto investors. Now you might or might not agree with these goals, and you might or might not support the Trump administration, and you might or might not like Trump, but the article headline was at odds with the article content and with the DoJ memo.

dang 1y ago
(This was originally posted as a reply to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43634582 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43634582, but it's a substantive comment so I've merged it along with the others.)
- trust_bt_verify 1y ago
  Seems like an odd choice to move some but not all comments between posts like this. Especially when the only ones moved seem to be conservative talking points. This one even discusses a title that doesn’t exist on this article?
  - dang 1y ago
    > Seems like an odd choice to move some but not all comments between posts like this The idea is to move good, substantive comments that have something to contribute to the new thread, and to leave the ones that don't fit that description and are bound by the context of the previous article. I'm not saying I made all the calls perfectly about which ones to move and which ones to leave, but that's the idea at least! If there are cases I missed, I'd be happy to take a look. > Especially when the only ones moved seem to be conservative talking points. You can't jump to conclusions like that from such a paltry handful of datapoints. I say "you can't", but of course you can, because everyone does! But it's not reliable to do so: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=%22always%20feels%22%20mods%20by%3Adang&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que... > This one even discusses a title that doesn’t exist on this article? Yes, that's why I replied—to make the context switch explicit because otherwise the comment wouldn't make sense.

by efitz 1y ago

dang 1y ago

(This was originally posted as a reply to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43634582 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43634582, but it's a substantive comment so I've merged it along with the others.)

trust_bt_verify 1y ago
Seems like an odd choice to move some but not all comments between posts like this. Especially when the only ones moved seem to be conservative talking points. This one even discusses a title that doesn’t exist on this article?
- dang 1y ago
  > Seems like an odd choice to move some but not all comments between posts like this The idea is to move good, substantive comments that have something to contribute to the new thread, and to leave the ones that don't fit that description and are bound by the context of the previous article. I'm not saying I made all the calls perfectly about which ones to move and which ones to leave, but that's the idea at least! If there are cases I missed, I'd be happy to take a look. > Especially when the only ones moved seem to be conservative talking points. You can't jump to conclusions like that from such a paltry handful of datapoints. I say "you can't", but of course you can, because everyone does! But it's not reliable to do so: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=%22always%20feels%22%20mods%20by%3Adang&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que... > This one even discusses a title that doesn’t exist on this article? Yes, that's why I replied—to make the context switch explicit because otherwise the comment wouldn't make sense.