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

U.S. SEC sees decentralized crypto platforms as exchanges

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 81 posts

Re: U.S. SEC sees decentralized crypto platforms as exchanges

#61

Post by LiquidSky »

trifurcate wrote: post #40
hef19898 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which means those exchanges are, until crypto becomes a mainstream payment method for everyday stuff, completely pointless. And, as a result, crypto as well.

> Which means those exchanges are ... completely pointless. I wonder what entices people to execute hundreds of thousands of trades totaling USD equivalent billions in daily trading volume on these platforms then. Would you say that everyone using these platforms is basically out to scam others or get rich quick?

Yes, though there's also a smaller cadre of naive true believers in there.

Re: U.S. SEC sees decentralized crypto platforms as exchanges

#62

Post by sowbug »

matheusmoreira wrote: post #55
kodah wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think energy consumption was ever actually a virtue of the people who complained about it. It was just a means to an end for curbing crypto and it's grifts.

You're right about that. It's hilarious to watch first world citizens posting opinions about BTC energy consumption on their made in china computers. You'd think they'd downgrade their comfortable lifestyles or at least stop trading with china if that was so important to them. No, better focus on cryptocurrency instead which is not even 1% of global energy consumption. I'd have more respect if they just said "I hate…

You'd think we'd have solved climate change by now, judging from how important energy conservation is to the anti-Bitcoin crowd.

Re: U.S. SEC sees decentralized crypto platforms as exchanges

#63

Post by anonymouskimmer »

Kranar wrote: post #59
LapsangGuzzler wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

After the collapse of Silvergate and Signature, I say “let them have it”. The crypto industry may be adept at moving across borders, but so are seasoned criminals. That shouldn’t automatically qualify them to operate with impunity. Millions of people lost savings in the wake of FTX, and we’re all just supposed to pretend that it was some singular, isolated incident? Their name was on an NBA arena, they spent millions…

It's funny you mention FTX, because FTX was exactly the opposite of a decentralized exchange. It was a centralized exchange that was unambiguously under the jurisdiction of the SEC. One of the major advantages of using a decentralized exchange is to avoid the risk that centralized exchanges like FTX expose you to, namely that it's a single point of failure that when collapses ends up taking a lot of people down with…

> With a decentralized exchange, your transactions happen within a matter of minutes and your only exposure to any potential failure is during those minutes.

I thought many DXes operated by people effectively parking tokens in them for long periods of time so that others can come by and trade for those tokens (otherwise you'd need a way to sync up people who want to trade). The credits received for parked tokens can be redeemed for any token at the exchange, but during the possibly extended period of time you're holding a credit instead of holding a token, you can lose it all if the DX is compromised.

Re: U.S. SEC sees decentralized crypto platforms as exchanges

#64

Post by anonymouskimmer »

matheusmoreira wrote: post #52
LapsangGuzzler wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

After the collapse of Silvergate and Signature, I say “let them have it”. The crypto industry may be adept at moving across borders, but so are seasoned criminals. That shouldn’t automatically qualify them to operate with impunity. Millions of people lost savings in the wake of FTX, and we’re all just supposed to pretend that it was some singular, isolated incident? Their name was on an NBA arena, they spent millions…

> Millions of people lost savings in the wake of FTX, and we’re all just supposed to pretend that it was some singular, isolated incident? Bail them out then. Why is it OK to bail out the Silicon Valley bank but not this one? These exchanges are literal banks, they even do fractional reserve banking which allows them to offer loans and savings accounts. Might as well bail out Tether too.

> Why is it OK to bail out the Silicon Valley bank but not this one?

1) Because SVB paid at least some money into the FDIC insurance fund.

2) Because SVB's deposits are mostly backed with still viable investments, and do not require an extended clawback process that will only ever get a certain fraction of the funds back.

Re: U.S. SEC sees decentralized crypto platforms as exchanges

#65

Post by bleep_bloop »

trifurcate wrote: post #40
hef19898 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which means those exchanges are, until crypto becomes a mainstream payment method for everyday stuff, completely pointless. And, as a result, crypto as well.

> Which means those exchanges are ... completely pointless. I wonder what entices people to execute hundreds of thousands of trades totaling USD equivalent billions in daily trading volume on these platforms then. Would you say that everyone using these platforms is basically out to scam others or get rich quick?

They're commodities. People trade in commodities millions of times a day, thats what you're describing. But unless it's possible to cash out into fiat they are completely worthless.

It's sad to see what has happened to crypto. So many scams and people using it as an investment opportunity. It will obviously never be able to replace fiat in it's current conception.

Re: U.S. SEC sees decentralized crypto platforms as exchanges

#66

Post by anonymouskimmer »

alphanullmeric wrote: post #24
jjtheblunt wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since Russia has lots of energy, maybe they can use it to settle transactions? Meanwhile Visa keeps on clearing incomparably more (by “several orders of magnitude”) encrypted transactions per second globally for miniscule energy?

Comparing the security of visa transactions to crypto is laughable. The IRS literally had a bounty out for anyone that could trace monero. Meanwhile, seizing money from traditional bank accounts and tracking credit card transactions is an every day chore for the government.

For about a 63 cent stamp and a 5 cent security envelope you can send about $8000 or so of effectively untraceable hundred dollar bills with the USPS.

Re: U.S. SEC sees decentralized crypto platforms as exchanges

#67

Post by anonymouskimmer »

sowbug wrote: post #60
ndriscoll wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everything I've read suggests the Visa network only processes ~5-10k transactions per second, which you could do on a single modest server. It is apparently built to handle up to 75k TPS[0]. Certainly it should be doable with less than 300 kW average. [0] https://usa.visa.com/dam/VCOM/global/about-visa/documents/vi...

Visa the company has over 20,000 employees. Presumably that network wouldn't function without them. Shouldn't the entire company's energy footprint be included in that 300kW?

VISA provides more services than transaction verification. Should the exchanges be included in the Ethereum energy footprint?

Re: U.S. SEC sees decentralized crypto platforms as exchanges

#68

Post by zefalt »

PretzelPirate wrote: post #38
LapsangGuzzler wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

After the collapse of Silvergate and Signature, I say “let them have it”. The crypto industry may be adept at moving across borders, but so are seasoned criminals. That shouldn’t automatically qualify them to operate with impunity. Millions of people lost savings in the wake of FTX, and we’re all just supposed to pretend that it was some singular, isolated incident? Their name was on an NBA arena, they spent millions…

> Millions of people lost savings in the wake of FTX, FTX...which was a regulated exchange in the US and failed because the SEC wasn't regulating. The issue with expanding the SEC's reach is that they're refusing to do their job and they're asking for more work that they aren't going to do. Commissioner Hester Peirce has a great statement on this: https://www.sec.gov/news/statement/peirce-rendering-inovatio... We als…

Pretty sure FTX was not a US corporation and catered to non-US customers. FTX.us, which was a minor branch that catered to US customers, was thought to be relatively solvent but ultimately collapsed like most things associated with FTX. Not saying that the SEC would have prevented anything in the fallout, but blaming them for failing to regulate seems somewhat incorrect.

Though, I am unclear why FTX filed bankruptcy in Delaware. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

Re: U.S. SEC sees decentralized crypto platforms as exchanges

#69

Post by landoftheice »

PretzelPirate wrote: post #38
LapsangGuzzler wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

After the collapse of Silvergate and Signature, I say “let them have it”. The crypto industry may be adept at moving across borders, but so are seasoned criminals. That shouldn’t automatically qualify them to operate with impunity. Millions of people lost savings in the wake of FTX, and we’re all just supposed to pretend that it was some singular, isolated incident? Their name was on an NBA arena, they spent millions…

> Millions of people lost savings in the wake of FTX, FTX...which was a regulated exchange in the US and failed because the SEC wasn't regulating. The issue with expanding the SEC's reach is that they're refusing to do their job and they're asking for more work that they aren't going to do. Commissioner Hester Peirce has a great statement on this: https://www.sec.gov/news/statement/peirce-rendering-inovatio... We als…

[dead]

Re: U.S. SEC sees decentralized crypto platforms as exchanges

#70

Post by matheusmoreira »

anonymouskimmer wrote: post #64
matheusmoreira wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Millions of people lost savings in the wake of FTX, and we’re all just supposed to pretend that it was some singular, isolated incident? Bail them out then. Why is it OK to bail out the Silicon Valley bank but not this one? These exchanges are literal banks, they even do fractional reserve banking which allows them to offer loans and savings accounts. Might as well bail out Tether too.

> Why is it OK to bail out the Silicon Valley bank but not this one? 1) Because SVB paid at least some money into the FDIC insurance fund. 2) Because SVB's deposits are mostly backed with still viable investments, and do not require an extended clawback process that will only ever get a certain fraction of the funds back.

Irrelevant. The whole point is to protect the blameless depositors, right? Then bail them out regardless of circumstances. Use taxpayer money to do it if necessary. Nobody cares whether the bank paid the insurance thing or not. What matters is avoiding financial calimity brought by the consequences of people's own choices.
Post reply on HN