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

281–290 of 443 posts

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

#281

Post by foodjinn »

fullshark wrote: post #30
gonzo41 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Economic actvity that you don't want a bank or government body to stop, so: illegal activity.

Mastercard and paypal have both shut down legal activity in the last 4 years on the backs of government decisions or targeting legal, but politically inconvenient activity and there seems to be no slowing down on that avenue. Pornhub is one recent major example of that.

The idea that it's just criminal enterprises that benefit from being able to participate in markets without interference is laughable at best given the increased interconnectedness between banks and the regulators themselves, especially not even 6 months after a rash of major banking failures within the traditional financial markets.

There is very little reason to have a favorable opinion of the SEC following the 08 collapse given their own hand in it or the banking failures existing now, especially when they refuse to clarify their position on what is or is not a security so people CAN legally operate in the space. It appears to many both inside and outside of the space that the SEC is wielding its regulatory arm to create winners and losers, and with their own track record it's a failing proposition.

It may be hyperbolic, but the holocaust was a legal activity in Nazi occupied territory.

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

#282

Post by jonathankoren »

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…

>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?

It's a financial instrument. A commodity is used to make or do something. Crypto currencies are literally just money making devices. Sure they call themselves currencies, but that's not their primary purpose. They're investment vehicles. Even the limited ability to trade them for goods an services doesn't get around this fact. It's like being paid in stock. That's how they're marketed. Not as a way to buy takeout, but rather get rich.

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

#283

Post by foodjinn »

mjburgess wrote: post #239
x86x87 wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hah. Protecting investors. What a bunch of croc. This was never about protecting investors. If it was they would have issues the guidance 5 years ago. This is about blowing up crypto in general by removing the on/off ramps (ie the exchanges). Also: mandatory crypto is bad for the environment and it consumes more power than the whole country of Argentina! /s But nobody seems to care or talk about how much power crapGP…

This is such a dangerous attitude. The reason regulators have waited years, despite the facts of the matter being legally obvious, is not wanting to be blamed for blowing up the whole ponzi house-of-cards. They've waited until enough such houses blew up on their own, that they feel "the facts have been demonstrated". If you want to know why they didnt "blow up crypto", "five years ago", its because of you -- and this…

The SEC had a hand in the subprime mortgage crisis, quite literally there is no reason to believe they are regulating on the behalf of anyone except the large banks. They absolutely are not regulating to help "investors" they are regulating to protect big banks like JPMC, just like they did in 08.

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

#284

Post by gen220 »

this_user wrote: post #154
dcow wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I think it's more a case that anyone who was involved in crypto early, and who has actually taken the time to understand the technology, has realised about a decade ago that crypto currencies are mostly useless. But then people had they idea that they could still make money from it by grifting people if they just added layer upon layer of complexity in order to disguise the ultimate uselessness of the underlying tech…

I think people are latching on to the magnitude of your claim rather than the direction and therein missing the point. FWIW, as somebody who meets your criteria, myself and my network of people from that time offer much credence to your claim.

Even back in 2016/17, many people involved were openly bemoaning how 80+% of ICOs were unregistered security offerings to vaporware.

You can almost pinpoint the inflection point at which Coinbase decided their goal was short-term profit maximization vs developing a healthy ecosystem. The company in the last 5 years is completely unrecognizable in contrast to when there were only 3 coins you could buy from them (USDT, BTC, ETH).

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

#285

Post by foodjinn »

dymk wrote: post #88
chroma wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If criticizing a regulatory body causes them to go after you, then that regulatory body is corrupt and should be dismantled and replaced with something else.

Taunt and criticize are two different verbs

And neither is justifiable cause for regulatory action.

I don't think this is the reason the SEC is going after Coinbase, but frankly I don't believe the SEC is doing any of this on the behalf of "protecting investors".

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

#286

Post by scottiebarnes »

mulmen wrote: post #279
scottiebarnes wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well consumer comes from the base word consume, which by definition includes the buying of a good or service, which is essentially a trade. Consume: - eat, drink, or ingest (food or drink). - buy (goods or services). - use up (a resource). - (especially of a fire) completely destroy. - (of a feeling) absorb all of the attention and energy of (someone).

I was asking an honest question but I don't like being trolled. Have a nice day.

Not sure why you think you're being trolled. Have a good one.

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

#287

Post by dcow »

mulmen wrote: post #279
scottiebarnes wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well consumer comes from the base word consume, which by definition includes the buying of a good or service, which is essentially a trade. Consume: - eat, drink, or ingest (food or drink). - buy (goods or services). - use up (a resource). - (especially of a fire) completely destroy. - (of a feeling) absorb all of the attention and energy of (someone).

I was asking an honest question but I don't like being trolled. Have a nice day.

You’re not bing trolled? Wat.

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

#288

Post by thisgoesnowhere »

dcow wrote: post #161
this_user wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's more a case that anyone who was involved in crypto early, and who has actually taken the time to understand the technology, has realised about a decade ago that crypto currencies are mostly useless. But then people had they idea that they could still make money from it by grifting people if they just added layer upon layer of complexity in order to disguise the ultimate uselessness of the underlying tech…

Meh, I'm no bull but I also don't think "cryptos are mostly useless" is accurate. I believe there are solid use cases for distributed global ledger and digital replacement for cash . Is Bitcoin the winning/best manifestation? I doubt it, we likely need something much more energy efficient (like Chia is trying to be). But I don't think the idea is bust. It just isn't as overwhelmingly applicable as people dreamed it m…

I don't think anyone here is arguing that digital cash or a global ledger is bad they are arguing that the specific structures and incentives of crypto are bad.

Bring on the digital cash IMO but bearer instruments underpinning any large scale finance is a recipe for disaster.

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

#289

Post by rvz »

x86x87 wrote: post #218
modeless wrote: post #160

The specific crypto tokens they are classifying as securities are: SOL, ADA, MATIC, FIL, SAND, AXS, CHZ, FLOW, ICP, NEAR, VGX, DASH, and NEXO. Of course they say "not limited to" to hedge their bets, but those are the ones they specifically mention. This is the exact "regulatory clarity" Coinbase has been asking for, but the SEC prefers to sit on their hands for years (while investors are "harmed") and then sue, rath…

Hah. Protecting investors. What a bunch of croc. This was never about protecting investors. If it was they would have issues the guidance 5 years ago. This is about blowing up crypto in general by removing the on/off ramps (ie the exchanges). Also: mandatory crypto is bad for the environment and it consumes more power than the whole country of Argentina! /s But nobody seems to care or talk about how much power crapGP…

> Also: mandatory crypto is bad for the environment and it consumes more power than the whole country of Argentina! /s But nobody seems to care or talk about how much power crapGPT is consuming. The future they tell me

He's right you know: [0] [1]. Cryptocurrencies like Ethereum moved from proof-of-work to proof-of-stake, eliminating 99% of their CO2 emissions. [2] There are alternatives to PoW and they exist today.

AI (Deep Learning) on the other hand is going to continue to waste more energy, water, etc has no viable efficient alternatives in training their deep neural networks without building more data centers.

[0] https://gizmodo.com/chatgpt-ai-water-185000-gallons-training...

[1] https://www.standard.co.uk/tech/ai-chatgpt-water-usage-envir...

[2] https://consensys.net/blog/press-release/ethereum-blockchain...

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

#290

Post by dcow »

ethanbond wrote: post #272
dcow wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My point is simply that crypto requiring a nuanced legal treatment is not implicitly by design even if it was promoted as a feature early on by grifters and anarchists. It’s a technology like any other and it’s the regulators’ job to create fair and appropriate treatment for it (and our job to elect ones who will).

Bitcoin was literally designed to circumvent state monetary systems and their affiliated controls. Almost all the crypto descendants follow this path as well. So yes, it was by design that it’s hard to regulate.

What about bitcoin makes it any harder to regulate than cash?
Post reply on HN