Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The SEC has told us it wants to sue us over Lend. We don’t know why

blog.coinbase.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

441–450 of 454 posts

Re: The SEC has told us it wants to sue us over Lend. We don’t know why

#441

Post by cyanydeez »

tw04 wrote: post #304
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the capital is not in theory at risk The capital is in theory at risk. The DeFi protocol could get hacked. Coinbase could get hacked. Coinbase could steal your money. Coinbase could go bankrupt. The fact that their marketing leads reasonable people like you to compare Lend to a savings account with no risk, even in theory, is the choking canary of the mess.

Sure, they want to rewind to a time when your bank account was unsecured and banks themselves had 0 regulation. Because it's a heck of a lot easier to make money when you can take massive risks with other people's money while lying to them and claiming there's no risk at all.

thats basically what uber did to the taxi system and it worked.

but ir the srgument is its a savings account then theres regulatory structures for that which i doubt they are covered either.

people ultimately praise "disruption" itself when half the time its mostly breaking laws that may or may not have grown excessive redtape

Re: The SEC has told us it wants to sue us over Lend. We don’t know why

#442

Post by itsme24543 »

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #352
corey_moncure wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The inverse take on this is that entrenched rich interests made all their money during such periods and have now used regulation to "pull up the ladder behind them". People who are foolish with their money will always find a way to lose it.

Coinbase is worth $50 billion. I like Brian Armstrong more than I like the typical finance CEO, but his company is definitely an entrenched rich interest, and if we treat them as a scrappy underdog we're going to let them get away with things they probably shouldn't. You should be skeptical on principle when a billionaire tells you that a financial regulator is being unfair to them.

in fact they make a lot of money from institutional investors https://www.theblockcrypto.com/post/116855/inside-coinbases-..., so def not an underdog.

Re: The SEC has told us it wants to sue us over Lend. We don’t know why

#443

Post by dzamo_norton »

cyanydeez wrote: post #441
tw04 wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, they want to rewind to a time when your bank account was unsecured and banks themselves had 0 regulation. Because it's a heck of a lot easier to make money when you can take massive risks with other people's money while lying to them and claiming there's no risk at all.

thats basically what uber did to the taxi system and it worked. but ir the srgument is its a savings account then theres regulatory structures for that which i doubt they are covered either. people ultimately praise "disruption" itself when half the time its mostly breaking laws that may or may not have grown excessive redtape

> thats basically what uber did to the taxi system and it worked.

Modulo any discernible path to profitability.

Re: The SEC has told us it wants to sue us over Lend. We don’t know why

#444

Post by anonymoushn »

quickthrowman wrote: post #348
anonymoushn wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The risk-free rate in this sector is substantially higher than 4%.

It’s not risk free, US Treasuries are ‘risk-free’ and anything that pays a higher yield has risk. If it didn’t have risk, it would be arbitraged down to the risk-free rate.

You can post that markets are efficient and I'll keep making money from obvious inefficiencies I guess.

Re: The SEC has told us it wants to sue us over Lend. We don’t know why

#445

Post by arcticbull »

kobasa wrote: post #434
arcticbull wrote: post #405

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The SEC didn't say that everyone else could do it. They said the action itself is illegal and they're beginning their enforcement actions at Coinbase. Nobody is allowed to do it, and a judgement in their favor here will allow them to expeditiously stop everyone else with the explicit precedent they form. That's almost certainly why they're pushing ahead. It feels like your reaction is akin to a group of 5 cars speedi…

"They said the action itself is illegal and they're beginning their enforcement actions at Coinbase" - they said no such thing, stop guessing out of your backside to try to strengthen phantom arguments.

Uh... "I'm going to sue you" -> "they are saying the action is illegal"

Suing Coinbase first -> "beginning their enforcement actions at Coinbase"

Which exactly fantom argument is 'the first page of the Securities Act of 1933'?

Do I know for a fact they're going to go after everyone else? No, I don't work there, time will tell.

Re: The SEC has told us it wants to sue us over Lend. We don’t know why

#446

Post by RustyConsul »

jimkleiber wrote: post #380

This article seems to play into a trend I think I'm seeing more and more: caring more about the court of public opinion than the court of law. At least that's the impression I got from phrases such as "engage productively", "proactively engaging", "eager to hear", and others that seem to say that Coinbase has good intentions and is trying their best, while at the same time seeming to portray the SEC as uncooperative…

Airbnb, Uber, Facebook, Google, etc. all broke certain regulations or had regulations thrust upon them after the fact. Since technology companies move much faster than bureaucracy's ever can, I suspect the ask for forgiveness instead of permission is going to be an increasing theme in starting revolutionary industry's.

The internet is a place that transcends locality but governments are still trying in vain to regulate them as if they were part of their jurisdiction. Certain regulation made in the globalist economy we find ourselves in, will determine which industries are cultivated within that locality.h emore obscure and burdensome the regulation, the more you will drive entrepreneurs elsewhere.

Re: The SEC has told us it wants to sue us over Lend. We don’t know why

#447

Post by jimkleiber »

jimkleiber wrote: post #380

This article seems to play into a trend I think I'm seeing more and more: caring more about the court of public opinion than the court of law. At least that's the impression I got from phrases such as "engage productively", "proactively engaging", "eager to hear", and others that seem to say that Coinbase has good intentions and is trying their best, while at the same time seeming to portray the SEC as uncooperative…

@RustyConsul, I have no idea why you were downvoted so much and frankly I feel annoyed about it. I liked your comment and wanted to continue the discussion but because some people downvoted you so much, I can't reply to your comment. I hope you see this one and realize not everyone wanted to shut down the discussion.

Re: The SEC has told us it wants to sue us over Lend. We don’t know why

#448

Post by phkahler »

spiralx wrote: post #407
morpheos137 wrote: post #399

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it is more people who are ignorant about how monetary economics works. Try living in an economy without fractional reserve banking. You'll find credit is very hard to come by and interest rates are high.

Fractional reserve banking doesn't apply to the modern economy though, because we no longer use commodity-backed money where the economy is based on shuffling round physical tokens. Money is created by banks lending money when they update your balance. https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/-/media/boe/files/quarterly-... > This article explains how the majority of money in the modern economy is created by commercial banks…

That link is rather disturbing. They clearly state that money is created when a bank "makes a loan" and simultaneously creates a deposit in your account. In other words, they enter an amount in your account and simultaneously an IOU to themselves to redeem later.

Re: The SEC has told us it wants to sue us over Lend. We don’t know why

#449

Post by KuhlMensch »

throwaway34241 wrote: post #382
hajile wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Central banking is itself insecure. In 2008, the banks failed. They put a gun to the heads of everyone in America and said "bail us out or you lose everything". So the bankers kept all their profits and everyone else lost big. That is just one of many central bank failures. The only difference from the many small bank system that came before is that instead of a bank here or there failing and everyone else moving on,…

> So the bankers kept all their profits and everyone else lost big. I believe the government actually made a profit on the bailouts (the TARP program), probably because they bought while prices were low. Not that there isn’t a lot to criticize about how things went down. I wouldn’t put too rose-colored-glasses on the pre-central bank era either, we still had financial panics and bank failures and the fact that the wo…

Interesting. Remeber where you read the though experiment?

Re: The SEC has told us it wants to sue us over Lend. We don’t know why

#450

Post by SilasX »

arcticbull wrote: post #424
SilasX wrote: post #422

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>They're all doing crime. No, not a point of agreement -- if the SEC is silently accepting a new exception to Howey based on market realities, then what Coinbase is doing isn't a crime. We don't know until they go on record saying what their opinion is. That happens all the time in regulation: they realize, long after the fact that something is technically violating the rules but just grandfather it in since it's bec…

> [edit] No, not a point of agreement -- if the SEC is silently accepting a new exception to Howey based on market realities, then what Coinbase is doing isn't a crime. That's not what they're doing, and yes it is a crime lol. It would work just as well with murder, but you're choosing to look the other way because it's white collar. > That's the problem with stonewalling: You don't know what the other side actually…

>That's not what they're doing, and yes it is a crime lol. It would work just as well with murder, but you're choosing to look the other way because it's white collar.

The whole point of asking the SEC is to know where they fall, since it's unclear whether they've silently accepted stuff like Gemini, or whether there's a substantively different or whether they will prosecute. Assuming that it's a crime is assuming away the core point of contention!

>>That's the problem with stonewalling: You don't know what the other side actually objects to!

>No, that's why I re-stated my assumptions, including any potentially hidden ones,

I was referring to the SEC's stonewalling there, not your tactics (though they're similarly unproductive).

>No, I'm saying the wheels of justice turn slow and this shit takes time [edit] and regulators literally have to start somewhere because they have limited resources. So long as it happens within the statute of limitations its explicitly in play.

Yes, I heard you say that, and I get that you don't see the similarity; the point was that these are substantively the same thing in that they persistently introduce an unevenness in the playing field; the fact that you can ignore that dynamic doesn't mean it's not a flaw your position or that you aren't effectively endorsing such inequality before the law.

>You're obviously either misreading my point or not interested in understanding. You pick one. Get a judgement. Apply that judgement. This is equal treatment.

And then, learn how judgment is spelled if you're going to use it so often and use confidence and intimidation as a substitute for substantiating your position.

>No, I limit my edits to the first two to three minutes after I write a comment, to before anyone can reply. If someone can reply I annotate my edits. This is my workflow.

No, I saw your comment more than 3 minutes after posting and it had significant un-noted edits, and now you're just mocking me by flooding your comment with [edit].

>My point is it's way too soon to know if you're right or I'm right, we must wait and see a year from now, or two years from now. 180 days is nothing.

No, you've definitely phrased your comments with significantly more (unjustified) confidence than that. See "yes it is a crime lol".

Post reply on HN