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

Insider Trading at Coinbase

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 348 posts

Re: Insider Trading at Coinbase

#191

Post by Jorge1o1 »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #174
qeternity wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who determines what qualifies as “unsophisticated”. This is where the overzealousness creeps in. Regulators always push for more regulations.

Regulators discover and patch regulatory gaps. One might say that’s doing their job, versus overzealousness.

So a “poor” but highly knowledgeable financial planner making “only” $180k a year can’t invest in their friend’s startup because the regulators deem it too risky. But some random dentist can?

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-09-24/earnin...

Re: Insider Trading at Coinbase

#192

Post by celticninja »

parkingrift wrote: post #107

Crypto fans want deregulated finance. Crypto fans get mad when deregulated finance is comically unfair. You really can’t make this up. Embrace this. It’s exactly what crypto is all about.

Do they though? Are you certain these are the same people or are you just lumping them all together as crypto fans because it allows you to shit on then? Crypto fans aren't all the same, it's a bit like saying all HN users hate crypto. They dont, it's a crass generalisation used to score some useless internet points.

Re: Insider Trading at Coinbase

#193

Post by esperent »

berberous wrote: post #189
parkingrift wrote: post #107

Crypto fans want deregulated finance. Crypto fans get mad when deregulated finance is comically unfair. You really can’t make this up. Embrace this. It’s exactly what crypto is all about.

This is a strawman. It also paints “crypto fans”, as some monolithic group that all think the same way. I am a crypto fan and do not “want deregulated finance”. It is not “exactly what crypto is all about”. I think most in the space would actually like to see more sensible regulation.

> It also paints “crypto fans”, as some monolithic group that all think the same way.

This is unfortunate. However, in my experience of crypto fans it seems like a large - probably very large - majority of them are fans of deregulation and consider this one of the main positive points of crypto. Would you say that's incorrect?

Re: Insider Trading at Coinbase

#194

Post by rosndo »

lexapro wrote: post #121
rosndo wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In a world where insider trading is legal, why would you stick to small time trades?

Limited available capital? You can only borrow so much money. Also, you can't know for certain how much the stock will move after the information becomes public.

Surely you would shop around and raise money from big funds? If they won’t bite, maybe your information just isn’t that impactful.

Re: Insider Trading at Coinbase

#195

Post by tootie »

rchaud wrote: post #128
parkingrift wrote: post #107

Crypto fans want deregulated finance. Crypto fans get mad when deregulated finance is comically unfair. You really can’t make this up. Embrace this. It’s exactly what crypto is all about.

A lot of the rah-rah boosterism of "decentralization" is coming from VCs that saw how much money there is to be made by ignoring laws and regulations for long enough. Airbnb and Uber are the most brazen examples of this. What's left unsaid of course is that the only interest deep-pocketed investors have in dismantling elements of the financial system (MC/Visa dominance, KYC/AML checks, suspicious transactions disclos…

It's true. AirBnB and Uber/Lyft exist almost entirely as tools to weaponize regulatory loopholes. True of a lot of analytics tools as well.

Re: Insider Trading at Coinbase

#196

Post by TheColorYellow »

skybrian wrote: post #136
datadata wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think crypto fans want transparency and an equal playing field, and are more afraid of things like regulatory corruption and markets that are not open to them. It is not clear that "regulated finance" prevents comically unfair outcomes either. You still have insider trading that is legally protected, discriminatory rules like accredited investor qualifications, and abuse of the legal system by the rich to avoid reg…

Um, being an accredited investor gives you exposure to investments that aren’t transparent. You don’t get the same access to financial statements as with public companies. If you want more transparent investments then you should be advocating for reforms that will encourage companies to go public sooner. This would be reversing the trend in recent years where companies stay private longer, which allows them to not di…

Equating public financial statements with "transparency" is a fallacy. It creates moral hazard and over-emphasizes private audit facilities.

Is it objectively better than non-public financial statements? Maybe. Is it worth saying this alone should draw the line on what is considered a "safe" investment? No.

Again, the OP is asking about access, not what you believe about "transparent investments"

Re: Insider Trading at Coinbase

#197

Post by thwayunion »

datadata wrote: post #187
thwayunion wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Accredited investor rules was an example of not having a even playing field. 1. Having an income that qualifies you as an accredited investor doesn't mean that you will have access to higher quality investments. 2. Even if you don't qualify as an accredited investor, you probably still have access to the same set of investments that a capital-poor accredited investor has access to. As an accredited investor, I've n…

You are basically saying that accredited investor rules are not successful in excluding people from making certain types of more desirable investments, because there are other barriers that are in place anyway. I think this is true, but beside the point. If you want to have an even playing field for investing, every barrier is an obstacle.

> I think this is true, but beside the point.

I think you missed my point. To reiterate: the fact that people believe that it's not true is, ironically, a convincing justification for the accredited investor rule.

I'm pointing out the irony, not defending the rule per se.

> If you want to have an even playing field for investing, every barrier is an obstacle.

This clearly isn't true.

First, it's sort of prime facie false. Investments usually happen in markets. Markets are human inventions comprised of collections of barriers on behavior and enforcement mechanisms for those barriers. (Investments that happen outside of markets do exist, but they usually involve violence and/or coercion under threat of violence, so probably not what you mean when you say investment.)

Second, there are many ready examples. E.g., SEC filings and public exchanges are clear barriers to entry in fund raising, but also clearly level the playing field. The alternative is that the only way to know about a company's finances is to know the right people.

Re: Insider Trading at Coinbase

#198

Post by TheColorYellow »

jcranberry wrote: post #167
datadata wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Accredited investor rules was an example of not having a even playing field. The market is not open to everyone which contributes to unfair outcomes. I'd welcome reforms to transparency as well there, as lack of transparency also contributes to unfair outcomes (the company can exploit investors).

Accredited investing requirements are to keep non-experts or people without money to lose from being swindled by companies which aren't required to be transparent with their financials.

Public companies swindle quite often, and usually with more catastrophic results.

When are we going to admit that the current rules are no longer working?

Re: Insider Trading at Coinbase

#199

Post by toomuchtodo »

Jorge1o1 wrote: post #191
toomuchtodo wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Regulators discover and patch regulatory gaps. One might say that’s doing their job, versus overzealousness.

So a “poor” but highly knowledgeable financial planner making “only” $180k a year can’t invest in their friend’s startup because the regulators deem it too risky. But some random dentist can? https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-09-24/earnin...

The dentist can weather the poor investment. Knowledge does not make you financially solvent. It just improves your gambling odds as it relates to equity investment.

Re: Insider Trading at Coinbase

#200

Post by helloworld11 »

cuteboy19 wrote: post #143
fourstar wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Coinbase is an SEC “compliant” company. What specifically about this company is “deregulated”?

There are very few compliance rules to begin with for this space. I'd imagine that the compliance department at Coinbase is just a dead goldfish

This is the kind of snarky, evasive answer that flippantly dismisses any counter argument and is so typical on this particular site when it comes to anything involving crypto. Never mind that the comment it replies to asked a perfeclty valid, serious question and mentioned exactly the heap of SEC regulations Coinbase is governed by. Absurd.
Post reply on HN