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

Proposed SEC order to freeze, repatriate Binance.US assets

kitco.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 598 posts

Re: Proposed SEC order to freeze, repatriate Binance.US assets

#191

Post by jojobas »

whatever1 wrote: post #175
rzi wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Derivatives let you trade things other than price and are important in hedging against certain types of risk. I don’t think the point is to invest in them so I agree it seems like gambling for most people.

If it is insurance call it insurance and regulate it as such. But today we are the point where we’re trading each others insurances betting on whether they will be triggered or not. That is bonkers.

Let's say you invest in green energy. But as a hedge, you buy some deep OOM oil options.

Should you call that insurance as well?

Re: Proposed SEC order to freeze, repatriate Binance.US assets

#193

Post by cft »

TheDudeMan wrote: post #170
ProjectArcturis wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's more the failure of the crypto community over the past 14 years to develop a use for crypto beyond speculation and crime.

It works well for sending money across the world. Seems like a nice thing to be able to do.

When i was in Ukraine before the war an ATM ate my debit card. Being stranded in a foreign country without an ATM card is pretty difficult. I thought that as soon as I walk into that Russian-owned Alpha Bank I would get my ATM card back. It actually took 4 days of daily visits and arguing with them in English and sometimes even in Spanish, where they asked me to write a letter to Kiev in Ukrainian, and wait a month for a decision. After that experience I was afraid to insert my ATM card into any bank machine over there. Instead I started buying Bitcoin on Coinbase and selling it at the local Bitcoin outfit for Hryvna and USD, to pay my rent.

Re: Proposed SEC order to freeze, repatriate Binance.US assets

#194

Post by LapsangGuzzler »

TacticalCoder wrote: post #172

The SEC was meeting with SBF and failed to protect US citizens who sent money to FTX. So far Binance hasn't pulled a ponzi scam (they existed before Alameda/FTX and have never stolen anyone's money). So basically the SEC failed to protect people from that ponzi scammer boy SBF was, but they're going after the like of Binance and Coinbase, who, so far, never stole a cent from anyone?

According to NYT, Binance was moving billions into accounts held in Seychelles, Lithuania and Kazakhstan etc. via two banks that failed earlier this year in patterns that resemble money laundering[0]. If Binance was laundering its funds through two banks that just went through liquidation, you can bet that auditors figured that out pretty quick.

0: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/07/business/binance-cash-ban...

Re: Proposed SEC order to freeze, repatriate Binance.US assets

#195

Post by lost_tourist »

TacticalCoder wrote: post #172

The SEC was meeting with SBF and failed to protect US citizens who sent money to FTX. So far Binance hasn't pulled a ponzi scam (they existed before Alameda/FTX and have never stolen anyone's money). So basically the SEC failed to protect people from that ponzi scammer boy SBF was, but they're going after the like of Binance and Coinbase, who, so far, never stole a cent from anyone?

Or they walked like a duck and quacked like a duck but still said they were a turtle... I think this will all be very interesting when it's all said and done.

Re: Proposed SEC order to freeze, repatriate Binance.US assets

#196

Post by Tesl »

wmf wrote: post #76
elkos wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would trading only Bitcoin and Ethereum which last time i checked aren't securities be a probable way out of this mess for Coinbase?

Yeah, but then they'd go out of business due to lack of revenue.

Even better

Re: Proposed SEC order to freeze, repatriate Binance.US assets

#197

Post by jojobas »

lxgr wrote: post #116
rr808 wrote: post #48

[flagged]

There’s a fairly straightforward way to stay out of SEC jurisdiction: Don’t sell to US retail investors (including “not selling to US customers, but wink wink have you ever heard of VPNs?”).

I don't remember "freedom of capital" have a "but you're subject to SEC" caveat.

Re: Proposed SEC order to freeze, repatriate Binance.US assets

#198

Post by lumost »

whatever1 wrote: post #175
rzi wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Derivatives let you trade things other than price and are important in hedging against certain types of risk. I don’t think the point is to invest in them so I agree it seems like gambling for most people.

If it is insurance call it insurance and regulate it as such. But today we are the point where we’re trading each others insurances betting on whether they will be triggered or not. That is bonkers.

Not inherently, when the numbers get big - strange things happen. It's not unreasonable that there would be insurance of insurance - it's also not unreasonable that there would be market traded contracts for the insurance of insurance. Provided that all parties can maintain their obligations under the contract... which may be a dubious/untested claim.

Re: Proposed SEC order to freeze, repatriate Binance.US assets

#199

Post by gpm »

phire wrote: post #128
ac29 wrote: post #120

The article title is incorrect, this restraining order has been requested by the SEC, not granted yet. Its a bit confusing because the submitted order is a proposal of how a order could be given by a judge, but is still full of important blank information like the name of the judge, the date, etc.

Title appears to be correct: "Later on Tuesday, a filing from the United States District Court for the District Of Columbia showed that the court had agreed to grant the SEC’s demands."

I think the author of the article misunderstood.

In the article the words "a filing" link to attachment 1 to docket entry 4, titled "Text of Proposed Order"

Further the docket indicates that sometime today (Wednesday) the court scheduled a hearing on the 13th to consider this motion (docket entry 4).

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67474542/securities-and...

As tedunangst says below, this is common and doesn't mean the judge agreed with you.

It just makes it procedurally easy for the judge to agree with you. The judge might not sign it at all. Might edit it and then sign it. Might write their own version that says something else. Etc.

Re: Proposed SEC order to freeze, repatriate Binance.US assets

#200

Post by vagab0nd »

whatever1 wrote: post #175
rzi wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Derivatives let you trade things other than price and are important in hedging against certain types of risk. I don’t think the point is to invest in them so I agree it seems like gambling for most people.

If it is insurance call it insurance and regulate it as such. But today we are the point where we’re trading each others insurances betting on whether they will be triggered or not. That is bonkers.

Why is it bonkers though? In a complete free market, everybody does whatever they want and as a result you get the best deal on your insurance premium.
Post reply on HN