11–20 of 203 posts
it didn't address explicitly what all others were
“That’s the only one I’m going to say because I’m not going to talk about any one of these tokens”
https://twitter.com/SBF_FTX/status/1541565079992369155?s=20&...
The SEC can threaten, but they may have blown up their opportunity to regulate cryptocurrency. If they lose the Ripple vs SEC lawsuit (and, according to observers, it's not been going as well for the SEC as they would wish), they could permanently lose almost all ability to regulate cryptocurrency by their lack of timely action and because of one speech by an SEC official four years ago. The SEC is basically trying t…
Would you mind sharing more of your thoughts on what might play out if the SEC loses? And then also, if you don't mind, what would happen if the SEC wins?
If the SEC wins, they can define some cryptocurrencies as "securities" which then automatically becomes part of their regulatory authority.
This is why they are being careful to say only Bitcoin isn't a security now. That speech in 2018, centerpiece of the lawsuit, said Ethereum also was not a security. If that speech is found a legally binding statement, it's really hard to find anything smart-contract-powered from Ethereum to XRP as a security.
I expect this will be even more true for crypto. While I believe that some regulation might be a good thing as it makes crypto safer for the wider public I am genuinely doubtful that the SEC has the capabilities or the right incentives to be that regulator.
The SEC can threaten, but they may have blown up their opportunity to regulate cryptocurrency. If they lose the Ripple vs SEC lawsuit (and, according to observers, it's not been going as well for the SEC as they would wish), they could permanently lose almost all ability to regulate cryptocurrency by their lack of timely action and because of one speech by an SEC official four years ago. The SEC is basically trying t…
Forgive me for being ignorant but can’t the congress expand SEC powers at any time by changing the law?
For instance, the duly elected Democrats who control the House, Senate and White House like to point the finger at the Supreme Court, but they could easily pass whatever law they want about abortion. There would be no more arguing about original intent or penumbrae etc.
This is huge. Essentially if they find anyone sold crypto to unaccredited investors they would be engaging in illegal sales of a security. This may lead to lawsuits where crypto sellers find they are on the hook for the losses of people they illegally sold to. It may also lead to jail time for a substantial portion of the crypto community.
Not only does this make sense but it also further speaks to the strength of the bitcoin project, specifically Satoshi’s decision to not be a public figure/BDFL. I doubt this security-commodity issue factored in specifically, but it was really a brilliant and largely unprecedented move that aligns with bitcoin’s political philosophy as well: no leaders.
This is huge. Essentially if they find anyone sold crypto to unaccredited investors they would be engaging in illegal sales of a security. This may lead to lawsuits where crypto sellers find they are on the hook for the losses of people they illegally sold to. It may also lead to jail time for a substantial portion of the crypto community.
The SEC can threaten, but they may have blown up their opportunity to regulate cryptocurrency. If they lose the Ripple vs SEC lawsuit (and, according to observers, it's not been going as well for the SEC as they would wish), they could permanently lose almost all ability to regulate cryptocurrency by their lack of timely action and because of one speech by an SEC official four years ago. The SEC is basically trying t…
EDIT: Administrative agency "rulemaking" is constrained by a fixed set of procedures that an agency must follow in order to "promulgate" a rule. First, they must publish a draft of the proposed rules, allow for several weeks or months of public comment, spend several weeks or months reviewing those comments, revise the rules as needed based on the comments received (or explain why no revisions are necessary), and then finally publish the finalized rules in the Federal Register.
Comments made by a single employee do not convey, or constrain, an agency's position on matters within its scope (unless those comments are made in, and pursuant to, a legal proceeding, in which case they are binding only for the limited scope of that legal proceeding).
This is huge. Essentially if they find anyone sold crypto to unaccredited investors they would be engaging in illegal sales of a security. This may lead to lawsuits where crypto sellers find they are on the hook for the losses of people they illegally sold to. It may also lead to jail time for a substantial portion of the crypto community.
The odds of this happening are effectively 0, federal government is working on a regulatory framework for crypto markets and it definitely doesn’t involve jailing anyone for sales that have previously been considered legal by basically everyone
[0]: Article I, Section 9 https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_St...>
Feels like if BTC is a commodity, then BCH and LTC clearly are as well, no?
Gensler has commented on those specifically in the past [1].