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

291–300 of 348 posts

Re: Insider Trading at Coinbase

#291

Post by thwayunion »

onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #218
crystaln wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re conflating everyone in a massive group. Americans want abortion rights then they pass laws against abortion. Can’t make this up! Developers want open source then they make closed source products. Can’t make this up!

> Americans want abortion rights then they pass laws against abortion. Can’t make this up! Literally only 32% of Americans are completely pro-choice: https://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx And, actually, most Americans support limitations on abortion. I'm not sure how you came to the idea that the vast majority of Americans are pro-choice.

I think the post you're responding to is correct according to the survey you shared.

First, a quick note. The gallup poll posted by onlyrealcuzzo seems ripe for "lying with statistics" on either side of the issue. For example, we could say "only 32% of people are totally pro-choice" but could also say "open 19% of people are totally pro-life". We could say "60% of people support Roe vs Wade" or we could say "most Americans do not support third trimester abortions without special reason".

Interpreting the poll with respect to a specific claim therefore requires care.

As a reminder, GP stated:

>> Americans want abortion rights then they pass laws against abortion.

First, do Americans want abortion rights?

The only question on the poll that directly asks about "rights" is the question about Roe v Wade, and nearly 60% of respondents do not want Roe-Wade overturned.

Second, do Americans oppose laws being passed against abortion?

Only 22% of respondents are dissatisfied with current laws and also want stricter abortion laws. More importantly, GP's characterization is STARKLY true if we look at how laws have changed recently. E.g., the new Oklahoma and Idaho laws ban abortion in cases of rape/incest. The gallup poll indicates that a whopping 83% of Americans support support first trimester abortions in cases of rape/incest, and that number is still over 50% in the third trimester. This is a clear and unambiguous case of GP being correct according to onlyrealcuzzo's source.

I think it takes a lot of mental gymnastics to interpret the gallup poll as stating that Americans don't oppose the types of abortion laws being passed now, sometimes in strikingly huge majorities.

Re: Insider Trading at Coinbase

#292

Post by nybble41 »

cuteboy19 wrote: post #234
renewiltord wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’d prefer Coinbase insider trading over Nancy Pelosi insider trading. So this isn’t the end of the world. There’s no universe where there’s no insider trading and you’re asking me to switch the Coinbase situation for the Pelosi situation. And I prefer the Coinbase situation. So I can accept the lesser of two evils and kick up a fuss when I don’t like it. After all, if switching to regulated finance is what you recom…

Coinbase would be frontrunning every trade you make. This would be a direct tangible loss to you. Think of it like a GME level fiasco but carried out every few weeks or so. Compared to that any insider trading Nancy does would be diffuse and unlikely to affect you personally.

Frontrunning gets you a worse price for your trade, so traders would naturally avoid exchanges which practice it in favor of others which offer a deal. There is no natural monopoly on crypto exchange services, though regulation does tend to raise artificial barriers to entry and promote centralization.

The "GME level fiasco" was only possible as a one-time event. You don't get situations like that on a recurring basis because the market adapts.

Re: Insider Trading at Coinbase

#293

Post by FabHK »

TheColorYellow wrote: post #211
wizardofdos wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because they are a gutted, disempowered US-regulator. Wrecked by 4 years of Trump and countless other presidents before them. Possibly there is also not the political will to ramp up the regulatory speed and power although I still have hope that Biden will be able to change that at least a bit.

What are you talking about? Read some history prior to the 4 years of the SEC. Look at the suggested reforms the SEC was supposed to undertake AS IDENTIFIED BY CONGRESS. Then look at what actual reforms where implemented. I'll help you out - almost none. The SEC has had a monopoly on financial market regulation since the 1930s and is just now becoming a victim to the cultural side affects of this monopoly. Shit, I ac…

> The SEC has had a monopoly on financial market regulation since the 1930s

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, National Futures Association, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and many others would like a word.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodity_Futures_Trading_Comm...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_Industry_Regulatory_...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Futures_Association

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_Financial_Protection_...

Re: Insider Trading at Coinbase

#294

Post by gcthomas »

dlp211 wrote: post #282
gcthomas wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your link shows 81% in favour of abortion, with or without some restrictions, with 19% against abortion. Wanting abortion rights is not synonymous with being pro-choice, which carries implications of no restrictions at all.

I hope I didn't misunderstand what you wrote, but where did you get the idea that being pro-choice means the ability to get an abortion from 0 months to 9 months pregnant? There is obviously a spectrum to being pro-choice, but if I had to bet I'd put the majority of pro-choice folks follow: that woman has the right to choose to have an abortion while the fetus is generally considered pre-viability by the medical prof…

Thanks, it seems that I have been interpreting the term pro-choice incorrectly.

Re: Insider Trading at Coinbase

#295

Post by nybble41 »

vimy wrote: post #170
lxgr wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> EU parlement will outlaw self hosted wallets Isn't it self-hosted anonymous wallets?

Yes but it’s gonna unworkable in practice to verify your own wallets. It’s a de facto ban.

It's hardly "unworkable". There are already systems in place for verifying your own wallets; you just need to sign a message using your key to verify that the wallet is actually yours.

So far I haven't seen any proposed rules about what you can do with the crypto once it's in your wallet, so all this means is that you need to withdraw to your own wallet first before sending the funds anywhere you want.

Re: Insider Trading at Coinbase

#296

Post by nybble41 »

lxgr wrote: post #158
vimy wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Also: obligatory "not your keys, not your coins" and "don't keep your coins on an exchange". Unless lobbying can still stop it the EU parlement will outlaw self hosted wallets. Only coins on exchanges will be allowed.

> EU parlement will outlaw self hosted wallets Isn't it self-hosted anonymous wallets?

> Isn't it self-hosted anonymous wallets?

Yes, and the proposed restrictions only apply to transactions which directly involve an exchange. You can still have an anonymous self-hosted wallet, you just can't withdraw to it directly; you have to move the funds to a verified wallet address first.

Re: Insider Trading at Coinbase

#297

Post by jiveturkey »

I would attribute this to either a hacker, or malicious insider, with access to the announcements before they go public. Not official coinbase behavior. It's way way too obvious for coinbase to be doing this, and if they were why would it be in such small amounts. Twitter is great for getting the pitchforks out.

Remember when the news wire was pwned? Someone was selling that news to various investment banks, who would trade on it. I smell a similar thing here.

If coinbase were doing this themselves, would it be illegal? I'm not an expert but I don't think so. Still, it's a very bad look and it strains credulity.

It could also be dumb luck. The same way people look at successful startups and think that is normal. I'd want to see a deeper analysis before judging.

Re: Insider Trading at Coinbase

#298

Post by nybble41 »

snarf21 wrote: post #168
sauwan wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Couldn't this just be that they keep some amount in cold storage that's not super easily accessible?

They're an exchange. Cold Storage is not their job. It isn't much of an exchange if I have to wait 8 hours to put in a sell order.

Coinbase definitely doesn't keep all their funds in a hot wallet. They keep enough readily accessible to cover the projected volume of withdrawals; the rest can be kept offline. They even specifically offer a "vault" service for managed cold storage.

When you put in a sell order through the normal "retail" interface you're trading with Coinbase itself. Those coins can stay offline in cold storage, as they're just moving numbers around in their database, off-chain. Only withdrawals and periodic internal rebalancing operations (making up for an imbalance between buys & sells) strictly require online access to the keys, and those only affect a small part of the total.

Re: Insider Trading at Coinbase

#299

Post by vimy »

nybble41 wrote: post #295
vimy wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes but it’s gonna unworkable in practice to verify your own wallets. It’s a de facto ban.

It's hardly "unworkable". There are already systems in place for verifying your own wallets; you just need to sign a message using your key to verify that the wallet is actually yours. So far I haven't seen any proposed rules about what you can do with the crypto once it's in your wallet, so all this means is that you need to withdraw to your own wallet first before sending the funds anywhere you want.

So how does it work? Where do I link my national ID to my wallet and how do I tell the government about it?

Re: Insider Trading at Coinbase

#300

Post by abduhl »

datadata wrote: post #216
thwayunion wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

I agree that markets are not natural and don't happen magically without human oversight and rules. But generally we want those systems to increase participation in the market. The criteria of net worth as a obstacle to market participation seems pretty indefensible here. It is hard for someone to commit to changing their net worth in the same way that a company can decide to become public, or that a wealthy person ca…

>> I would support some rule like “you must have either this net worth or prove that you are knowledgeable about investment in some way”

This is the accredited investor rule. You qualify as an accredited investor through income, net worth, or having a current Series 7/65/82 license.

Post reply on HN