351–360 of 443 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They did tell them - Howey test etc, Coinbase just didn't like the answer and thus has been pretending they didn't hear it.
Please point to where the SEC has made any official statement defining which crypto is and isn't a security.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>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: Well, given that there are clear ways of issuing securities that have worked for hundreds of years that aren't being followed and that people generally don't get the rug pulled in normal securities, I'd say that it's less dangerous in many obvious ways.
if coinbase pulls off its earn products you can be well assured that more people will get rug pulled elsewhere. Would you concede that?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The stance isn’t about whether Howey can be applied literally everywhere The stance is that applying it to digital tokens as unregistered securities means applying it to other places, like Nike shoes and baseball cards, just because any random individual expected to profit when they bought one that this framework is not applied everywhere, specifically how congress exempted spot commodities and commodities derivative…
Why would a sneaker fall under the terms they're using to define a security if not every digital token does?
because the sneaker trade market focuses on sneakers that are released with artificial scarcity, where many participants in that market buy with an investment of money, with a reliance on the issuer and others to keep them scarce and valuable and promote them, with an expectation of profit.
the SEC is basically saying if any random person has an expectation of profit guiding their purchase at any time, the entire asset and all transactions is a security and everyone that is trading it needs to be a registered broker dealer or registered promoter, and then even if they could be registered they would not be allowed to trade unregistered securities, or even registered esoteric securities like shoes and digital commodity units because the Self Regulatory Organizations are too permissioned for shares and bonds exclusively.
> if not every digital token does?
that's the point. there is either a way where a digital asset is exclusively a commodity, or there isn't at all and every corporate controlled unnatural commodity inherits the same regulatory framework that the SEC is trying to impose on digital assets and the entire trading ecosystem.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 CFT…
So... none of them? How long are y'all going to carry on this charade?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nothing says “innocent” like observing your criminality before getting right back to participating in the crime.
It could, if you're a whistleblower/informant. The SEC's bounty program makes it a pretty good idea. https://www.sec.gov/whistleblower
Curious how authoritarian hackernews is - is this just a knee jerk reaction to annoying cryptobros? Sounds like a board of police officers/retired army men right now commenting on how "that boy had it coming"
All through it the definition of a security has been clear, but Coinbase et al has pretended that the issue is "regulatory clarity" and not "we are operating as a fking unlicensed securities exchange in the USA bro".
Very rarely a cool use case for cryptocurrency will come up, but the marketing is now entirely "invest and make money!", which is some combination of tedious and scammy, depending on who it's coming from.
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The stance isn’t about whether Howey can be applied literally everywhere The stance is that applying it to digital tokens as unregistered securities means applying it to other places, like Nike shoes and baseball cards, just because any random individual expected to profit when they bought one that this framework is not applied everywhere, specifically how congress exempted spot commodities and commodities derivative…
Why would a sneaker fall under the terms they're using to define a security if not every digital token does?
Sneakers would not meet the Howey Test: An investment contract exists if there is an "investment of money in a common enterprise with a reasonable expectation of profits to be derived from the efforts of others."
The four parts of the Howey test, distilled down to plain English (and therefore losing a great deal of nuance in the process):
- It is an investment of money.
- The investment is in a common enterprise.
- There is an expectation of profits.
- The expectation of profits is solely from the efforts of the promoter or a third party.
Buying the latest Yeezy's is not a common enterprise. The fourth point is debatable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Under the Howey test, the rules are clear. "The test is whether the scheme involves an investment of money in a common enterprise with profits to come solely from the efforts of others. If that test be satisfied, it is immaterial whether the enterprise is speculative or non-speculative or whether there is a sale of property with or without intrinsic value." I think it is plausible that all pure staking initiatives wi…
> investment of money in a common enterprise with profits to come solely from the efforts of others This is where I see the "staking makes a cryptocurrency a security" fall apart. There are a handful of definitions for "staking" and some of them definitely meet the criteria of "a common enterprise with profits to come solely from the efforts of others" however many do not. 1. Ethereum's staking at a protocol level re…
If you pay money in now and get more money out later, and someone else runs the machines, then it's just a loan.
Then there's a question of where to draw the line with cloud hosting, and I have no opinion about that. Someone will sell a service that's barely on the right side of that line, wherever it is.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 CFT…
> The cryptocurrencies that are actually being used like currencies (e.g. actually used to buy things So... none of them? How long are y'all going to carry on this charade?