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

US SEC sues Coinbase, one day after suing Binance

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 443 posts

Re: US SEC sues Coinbase, one day after suing Binance

#51

Post by __MatrixMan__ »

gonzo41 wrote: post #15
TimPC wrote: post #2

Crypto companies think they don't trade securities which is clearly wrong and contradicted by their own advertising. People buy crypto without a real use for crypto because they think they can sell it for more later. Everyone under the sun knows this. It's obviously a security and failing to register should be met by SEC cases like this one.

What's the use of crypto again? Because I think it's kinda useless. Just like NFT's

Crypto is for coordinating group behavior in the presence of powerful adversaries (e.g. governments), always has been.

Re: US SEC sues Coinbase, one day after suing Binance

#52

Post by simpsond »

tromp wrote: post #12
throw1234651234 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's absolutely unclear what the SEC is doing here at all. Why is ALGO a security and ETH is not? They do the same thing. What are the implications of this lawsuit? Completely unclear. This is vague and unhelpful. edit: Keep downvoting - the fact, with a clear example, remains.

I think ETH should have been classified as one too, due to its ICO. Making an exemption for that was a mistake...

The primary use cases of ETH are changing state of the network and collateral for state change validation. Requester pays to effect change and some ETH is burnt and some goes to validators to incentivize operation. What other security does that? I don’t expect profit when using it to change state of the network.

Re: US SEC sues Coinbase, one day after suing Binance

#53

Post by spurgu »

paulpauper wrote: post #36

Crypto is like the worst investment ever: huge legal risk, does not hedge inflation, not a safeguard in crisis, does not benefit from tech/ai boom, does not generate profits. Only downside, no upside, no strengths, only weaknesses. the chart is only one direction: down The obvious weakness of bitcoin relative to QQQ demonstrates this. A daytrading pair trade method that shorts Bitcoin in market hours and goes long qq…

> Who goes against the fed. government and wins? big tobacco couldn't do it. neither could the auto industry.

Millions of people. Not a centralized exchange like this.

Re: US SEC sues Coinbase, one day after suing Binance

#54

Post by mmastrac »

dforrestwilson wrote: post #50
butlerm wrote: post #48

If you look up the definitions of "security", "financial instrument", "commodity", and "currency", it is pretty clear that a plain vanilla crypto-currency like Bitcoin is no ordinary security nor a financial instrument. It is not a claim on something else, even less so than a traditional bank note. It is more like a commodity. Since when is "aluminum" a security? A crypto currency business however may be engaged in t…

Getting sued to fall under govt regulation - and therefore gaining imprimatur - seems like exactly what these exchanges should want. We never regulated Beanie Babies.

I don't think Beanie Babies collectors tended towards the libertarian part of the axis, however.

Re: US SEC sues Coinbase, one day after suing Binance

#55

Post by _fizz_buzz_ »

krunck wrote: post #6
TimPC wrote: post #2

Crypto companies think they don't trade securities which is clearly wrong and contradicted by their own advertising. People buy crypto without a real use for crypto because they think they can sell it for more later. Everyone under the sun knows this. It's obviously a security and failing to register should be met by SEC cases like this one.

That's odd. All these years I thought I was exchanging dollars for Bitcoin for spending it. Thanks for setting me straight.

I know lots of people that own bitcoin. I haven't met anybody that uses bitcoin to spend it on anything.

It still makes front page news on reddit if someone does groceries with crypto: https://old.reddit.com/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/13a9q3r/yes...

People write articles if a house gets sold with bitcoin: https://finbold.com/house-in-portugal-sold-for-3-bitcoins-in...

Spending bitcoin on "stuff" basically doesn't exist. It's a rounding error.

Re: US SEC sues Coinbase, one day after suing Binance

#56

Post by eli »

butlerm wrote: post #48

If you look up the definitions of "security", "financial instrument", "commodity", and "currency", it is pretty clear that a plain vanilla crypto-currency like Bitcoin is no ordinary security nor a financial instrument. It is not a claim on something else, even less so than a traditional bank note. It is more like a commodity. Since when is "aluminum" a security? A crypto currency business however may be engaged in t…

The SEC didn't sue them over Bitcoin.

Seems obvious that Bitcoin shouldn't be unregulated and that there should be no question of which regulator has jurisdiction. Unfortunately that probably needs Congress to act.

Re: US SEC sues Coinbase, one day after suing Binance

#57

Post by hirako2000 »

dragontamer wrote: post #35
hirako2000 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gemini didn't collapse, and an evidence takes a bit more clarity to be treated as such. Luna is.. a coin Can't you get APY returns as a retail customer with pretty much any high street banks? In what ways is that less dangerous than going through a crypto exchange: by the fact the SEC is actively criminalising the activity rather than issuing licenses so that some customer protection via the justice system remains ou…

Ehhh, I got confused over the myriad of collapsed companies. Perhaps I shouldn't try to get better memory, but instead cryptocoin companies need to stop collapsing. Its getting difficult to remember each company's situation on an individual basis. Gemini was sued by SEC for running unregulated securities and was forced to shut down Gemini Earn months ago. Whatever, but its just another example of the kind of products…

I'm aware, I'm just pointing out luna is a coin. It's a bit hard to assimilate it to business entities running unregistered financial products on the US soil. My understanding is that Celsius or any lender that gets exposed to a token value collapsing can quickly get itself in serious muds since loans have a collateral, and in crypto those are often crypto tokens. Anyhow that's my recollection of what happened to Celsius, i could be wrong.

I don't think the problem the SEC is invoking is "dangerous" investments. I'm not sure who would be entitled to make the difference.

You could stake eth and that would be one of the safest positions to take in the crypto space. Actually anybody can, whether the SEC sees it as OK, via centralised exchanges for those who can access them or decentralized exchanges for those who can't. But then of course eth could drop 95% in value by next year and the yield would mean nothing to compensate. It could go the other way and go the other way.

Does it make it a dangerous product? A security illegal to trade without a license which the SEC wouldn't grant a license to offer as a product to anyone? Because it's dangerous or because it's a security having drastic volatility? More volatile than Gamespot shares not so long ago? Does it make gamespot so dangerous it should be banned from trading as a security? And one last one, what is more dangerous, owning eth tokens staked for long term returns, or some treasury bonds issued by a country that is systematically on the verge of defaulting on its unbearable debt?

And who's to say? I don't think the SEC has any legitimacy left to be taken seriously, it let SBF runs business inside and outside the US soil for years, embezzling well over 10B dollars, whether he is innocent or an idiot crook the ridicule crown goes to the SEC for not having seen anything suspect until after the empire entirely collapsed.

About having flimsy memories, it's OK but it discounts serious weight throwing incorrect facts when attacking a type of trading activity as a whole. Your argument did read like because so many collapsed, the whole thing must be flagged as a failure. Anyhow, coinbase, kraken, binance, gemini, kucoin and many others have been operating for years just fine, and are successful, profitable businesses to this day despite all the obstacles regulators and the press threw at them.

Anyhow back to the main point, I'm with you earn products if unregistered are non compliant with regulations, so the SEC can have its case and continue to pretend it's doing its job.

Re: US SEC sues Coinbase, one day after suing Binance

#58

Post by flanfly »

paulpauper wrote: post #46
EddieEngineers wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is true when it’s going down and false when it’s going up. Do the same analysis of previous years during bull crypto markets and does this hold up?

bitcoin's performance since late 2017 lags QQQ. the rolling 5-year returns have gotten way worse. Much of the gains were from pre-2018. many people five years ago were predicting six-figures by now, nowhere even close.

I'm not sure what you mean. BTC is up 29x since 2017 while QQQ is up 1.8x

Re: US SEC sues Coinbase, one day after suing Binance

#59

Post by pa7x1 »

dragontamer wrote: post #5
pnpnp wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn’t it true that the SEC wouldn’t let Coinbase register since they said Bitcoin _isn’t_ a security? It’s my understanding that Coinbase tried.

Article discusses Coinbase Earn, which was a staking service providing APY yields. Is that not an unregistered financial product? That's also the kind of financial product directly behind FTX, Voyager, Gemini, and Lunacoin / Celsius collapses. So we have direct evidence of a particular produce (staking) that is both unregistered and dangerous. That many Americans lost money over.

Minor clarification. Coinbase Earn is a lending product, you lend to Coinbase and you receive interest. The same applies to Celsius, it provided interest on money they borrowed. Coinbase also offers staking as a service, the SEC is also going after this.

But both of the above are different from actual Proof of Stake, as conceived by Ethereum. The SEC has made no mention of this in neither of the 2 current lawsuits. Unfortunately many of these products misused the term to whitewash or as a marketing gimmick.

Re: US SEC sues Coinbase, one day after suing Binance

#60

Post by paulpauper »

flanfly wrote: post #58
paulpauper wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

bitcoin's performance since late 2017 lags QQQ. the rolling 5-year returns have gotten way worse. Much of the gains were from pre-2018. many people five years ago were predicting six-figures by now, nowhere even close.

I'm not sure what you mean. BTC is up 29x since 2017 while QQQ is up 1.8x

it went up 20x in 2017. i said late 2017. it peaked at 20k in dec 2017.
Post reply on HN