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

Bitcoin is the only coin the SEC Chair will call a commodity

axios.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 203 posts

Re: Bitcoin is the only coin the SEC Chair will call a commodity

#31

Post by jandrese »

xhkkffbf wrote: post #14
encoderer wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Forgive me for being ignorant but can’t the congress expand SEC powers at any time by changing the law?

The saying in Washington is that no one is safe when Congress is in session. And that's pretty much true. Aside from some constitutionally guaranteed activities like petitioning for redress of grievances, they can pretty much legislate anything they can agree upon. (Assuming they can ever agree on anything.) For instance, the duly elected Democrats who control the House, Senate and White House like to point the finge…

Congress won't take action unless rich people start losing money.

Re: Bitcoin is the only coin the SEC Chair will call a commodity

#33

Post by f38zf5vdt »

IAmGraydon wrote: post #24
TimPC wrote: post #10

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.

>It may also lead to jail time for a substantial portion of the crypto community. I'm cracking up over here. Are you actually being serious?

They'll be kept company there by all the people who caused the 2008 US housing crisis.

Re: Bitcoin is the only coin the SEC Chair will call a commodity

#34

Post by mirntyfirty »

IAmGraydon wrote: post #24
TimPC wrote: post #10

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.

>It may also lead to jail time for a substantial portion of the crypto community. I'm cracking up over here. Are you actually being serious?

I’d claim that tax misrepresentation would likely lead to some jail time, particularly for those that don’t have the funds for legal representation. As far as I can tell, the prevailing point of Bitcoin is to make capital gains.

Re: Bitcoin is the only coin the SEC Chair will call a commodity

#35

Post by hnthrow1010 »

uncomputation wrote: post #16

Bitcoin has less foundation- or team-based leadership that have plagued other crypto projects. This leadership (eg Ethereum foundation) gives crypto projects the air of legitimacy, but also the impression, as Hinman put it, that some managerial work and direction is expected, tipping the scale towards security. If the network becomes decentralized to the point where no one party has sway over its direction (even a go…

The idea that Bitcoin has no leaders is a big lie that these regulators should be able to see through. You can take look at any of the well-known whales to see obvious evidence against that claim. They make the claim because it allows them to maintain plausible deniability while manipulating the market as much as they possibly can. I wouldn't trust anyone in finance who says they're not doing managerial work and direction; that work is required to make the stated goals work. It's about as big a red flag as when recruiters say "our company has no bosses and no management". It might fool some naive people, but those who are observant can see who's really in charge.

Re: Bitcoin is the only coin the SEC Chair will call a commodity

#36

Post by corrral »

gjsman-1000 wrote: post #12
ASlave2Gravity wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 loses, unless Congress were to pass a law to grant more authority, the SEC would have almost no ability to regulate cryptocurrency as they would have no ability to define cryptocurrency as a form of "security" (which is the purview they are granted legal authority over, even in their name, the Securities and Exchange Commission ). If the SEC wins, they can define some cryptocurrencies as "securities" which…

> 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.

That seems like a leap. Paper is a commodity, but a stock certificate is (or represents, whatever) a security. A contract may be written on paper, but create a security. A database isn't a security but an entry in the right database, in the right place, might be. It seems to me all it would do is keep smart contracts from being securities simply because they use Ethereum—if they are, or create, securities, I see no reason why those would be any harder to regulate than any others.

Re: Bitcoin is the only coin the SEC Chair will call a commodity

#38

Post by macksd »

colejohnson66 wrote: post #19
jrsj wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

It would probably run afoul of the Constitutional protection against "ex post facto" laws.[0] If something (in this case, selling Bitcoin) was legal when you did it, but is now a crime, it is unconstitutional to prosecute you for it. [0]: Article I, Section 9 https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_St... >

I also think it's unlikely, but California did at one point revoke a tax exemption and applied that decision retroactively, expecting interest on unpaid taxes that the law at the time said you didn't owe. As I recall, this wasn't considered ex-post-facto simply because being fined for under paying taxes isn't the same thing as convicting someone as a crime, so the rule of law doesn't have to work the same way. You can take any constitutional protection and someone will come up with an argument in their head for why it doesn't apply to things they don't like.

Re: Bitcoin is the only coin the SEC Chair will call a commodity

#39

Post by CPLX »

colejohnson66 wrote: post #19
jrsj wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

It would probably run afoul of the Constitutional protection against "ex post facto" laws.[0] If something (in this case, selling Bitcoin) was legal when you did it, but is now a crime, it is unconstitutional to prosecute you for it. [0]: Article I, Section 9 https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_St... >

Unregulated selling of securities has been a crime for a very long time. There are no ex-post issues at work here.

Re: Bitcoin is the only coin the SEC Chair will call a commodity

#40

Post by jrm4 »

daniel-cussen wrote: post #27

I agree with this. I have said it's the only crypto worth participating in because it's the only crypto that originated for idealistic reasons. In that capacity it is similar to gold, which in the Golden Age (something everybody talked about in Antiquity and I decided to believe, but I've never encountered anybody else believing in) was openly swapped around as little inventions (you can make all kinds of shit with g…

The dude in charge looks absolutely ridiculous -- but this is why I'm very interested in Richard Heart and his Hex / Pulse stuff.

If you "game theory" him out, I believe he adds up to being in crypto for idealistic reasons as well, despite the appearance of the methods he's using to get there.

Post reply on HN