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

181–190 of 443 posts

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

#181

Post by davidgerard »

dcow wrote: post #116
ethanbond wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the real crux of the issue is that these instruments were designed to be confusing to regulate and, alas, they're confusing to regulate. The error was in thinking that a confused regulator says "I don't understand what's going on here, carry on and rest easy" rather than what actually happens: "I don't understand what's going on here, and until I do -- on my schedule, not yours -- your business is always at r…

I don't think the pure commodity coins (layer 1 networks like btc, xch, etc) are confusing at all. You do work and get rewarded with a digital commodity. It’s exactly like digging up gold, or tapping a tree for maple syrup. Then a bunch of crypto anarchists showed up and started speculating that these coins would be worth a lot in the future because we could topple the financial hegemony by their powers combined. Oka…

> Then a bunch of crypto anarchists showed up

they literally started bitcoin and were the guys mapping out what they wanted from a digital currency over the previous twenty years, this is well known history

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

#182

Post by darksaints »

ForHackernews wrote: post #168
dsg42 wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only question here is whether cryptocurrency is a security or a commodity. Securities fall under regulation by the SEC (SECURITIES and Exchange Commission). Commodities are regulated by the CFTC (COMMODITIES Future Trading Commission). SEC Chair Gensler agrees that Bitcoin is a commodity, but thinks everything else is a security.[1] Securities are much more tightly regulated than commodities. The SEC is making it…

It's obviously gambling and should be regulated as such: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/may/17/cryptocur... Commodities have real-world uses (e.g. gold, oil, frozen orange juice), securities represent a claim on some productive enterprise. Cryptocurrency is neither.

Gambling happens in real world markets as well, but that doesn't mean that real world markets are casinos.

Beaniebabies were effectively regulated and taxed like commodities. Commodities do not require a real-world use. All they are are tradable non-currency things which can result in capital gains.

The speculative (HODL!!) cryptocurrencies should probably be treated like commodities, and regulated as such by the CFTC. The cryptocurrencies that are actually being used like currencies (e.g. actually used to buy things) should be regulated like foreign currencies, which would also be regulated by the CFTC (this is essentially the same exact thing as Commodities trading, but with simpler accounting rules which reflect the much higher liquidity, divisibility, and likelyhood that a unit changes hands). Neither of these scenarios involve the SEC. The SEC should only be involved when coins are being issued like securities (e.g. as a way to raise funding and sell financial stakes in some kind of enterprise).

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

#183

Post by whimsicalism »

vkou wrote: post #131
taeric wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A question where answering easily implies past behavior is very different from one that does not. "Do you think it is ok to beat your spouse?" better not get any slow rolled answer, and is more comparable here. Hell, I'd be fine with a hedged answer of "it can be." That would make a ton of sense and would make sense. Akin to asking "is it speeding to drive your car at 40?" The answer would be "in certain situations,…

Past behaviour isn't the issue. An incorrect assertion is the issue. Let me give you another chance to answer a simple yes or no question. ---- Since it's obvious that democrats are all criminals and baby-eaters, is Elizabeth Warren a democrat? Yes or no. No hemming or hawing. I'll interrupt you as soon as I hear any words besides those two. Your answer or failure to answer will appear as a headline in the New York T…

For any who might be interested, a link to the exchange that this user is comparing to asking if "democrats are all criminals and baby-eaters" [0]. Remember, the law is "extremely clear" on whether these tokens are securities or commodities, according to the GGP commentator.

[0]: https://youtu.be/VhA1dZXeao0?t=58

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

#184

Post by whimsicalism »

qeternity wrote: post #170
whimsicalism wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is not obvious a priori how regulators will treat tokens or which ones will be permissible.

It was obvious to a lot of people who were wondering what was taking regulators so long.

Interesting, maybe you should let Gensler know that the law is much more obvious than he appears to realize [0]

[0]: https://youtu.be/VhA1dZXeao0?t=58

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

#185

Post by EddieEngineers »

paulpauper wrote: post #72
EddieEngineers wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Huh? BTC is up 56% YTD, QQQ is up 34.5%. Over five years BTC is up 300%, QQQ is 100%. Over life BTC is 7850% while QQQ is 570%. Today QQQ is up 0.12%, BTC is up 0.95%. I don’t know which slice you want to compare but general holds of BTC have outperformed QQQ significantly, even today it’s done better while it’s two largest exchanges have been sued by the SEC.

bitcoin peaked at 20k in 2017. it is only up 30 percent to 26k. QQQ is up a lot more. over 5.5 years of weak performance. The major problem with bitcoin are the huge declines like in 2018 and 2022. It stopped going up as much anymore either like it did in 2013 or 2017.

But you've picked the very peak of a previous bull run against a dip of a bear market... QQQ peaked in 2021 at $404 but is now at $355 so it's down 15%. This is just as relevant as what you're saying but obviously doesn't capture the whole picture? QQQ dipped from $101 to $20 once which is a huge loss, larger than BTCs largest dip as a percentage, but again that doesn't really tell the whole picture either.

Not trying to be rude or argumentative here, I just really don't understand your point.

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

#186

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

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

#188

Post by koonsolo »

samb1729 wrote: post #143
koonsolo wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Go and take a look at the long term price of bitcoin. How anyone can lose money in that market is beyond me.

If everyone is supposed to have made money, where did that money come from?

Just because the market cap of Bitcoin is 520.50B, doesn't mean 520.50B has been invested into it.

Basically, as long as the price of Bitcoin is >0, more was won than lost. It's now at 25k, so a lot has been won.

So still in another way: if you bought bitcoin with fiat, your bitcoin now is still worth 25k

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

#189

Post by dcow »

potatototoo99 wrote: post #177
dcow wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Curious: is "bitcoin" being used by the SEC as a general term to mean "all cryptos that fundamentally employ a work-based consensus algorithm", or "pure" cryptos or whatever? Or is it not yet clear to the SEC that there are more instances of Nakamoto consensus networks out there and not everything other than BTC is a security? I agree that staked projects and derivative projects are securities since they are fundamen…

Of course not everything other than bitcoin is a security. My private blockchain no one knows about is not a security. It's not a universal law of the universe. What they mean is every coin/token they looked at. If asked to evaluate litecoin for example probably they'd say it's not a security as well. They don't need to pass judgement on each of the thousands of coins individually because definitions and common sense…

I’m just trying to understand the context. I hope it is as you say and it would be my baseline assumption that it is as well. But it’s not unquestionably obvious given history and what relatively little context is present in this thread. The SEC used to think all crypto is a security to the point where honest miners are instructed to declare blockchain rewards as income (I have, and TurboTax even asks you if you acquired crypto in the last year with no nuance as to how you acquired it or which one you acquired). It may be obvious to you and me but my question was more about how far the SEC’s understanding has evolved.

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

#190

Post by whimsicalism »

potatototoo99 wrote: post #177
dcow wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Curious: is "bitcoin" being used by the SEC as a general term to mean "all cryptos that fundamentally employ a work-based consensus algorithm", or "pure" cryptos or whatever? Or is it not yet clear to the SEC that there are more instances of Nakamoto consensus networks out there and not everything other than BTC is a security? I agree that staked projects and derivative projects are securities since they are fundamen…

Of course not everything other than bitcoin is a security. My private blockchain no one knows about is not a security. It's not a universal law of the universe. What they mean is every coin/token they looked at. If asked to evaluate litecoin for example probably they'd say it's not a security as well. They don't need to pass judgement on each of the thousands of coins individually because definitions and common sense…

They refuse to offer guidance even on the largest cryptocurrencies outside of BTC.
Post reply on HN