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

“But the SEC let us go public” and other flawed arguments in Coinbase's defense

newsletter.mollywhite.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 557 posts

Re: “But the SEC let us go public” and other flawed arguments in Coinbase's defense

#221

Post by kredd »

kaycey2022 wrote: post #205

I think its pretty shitty to want an entire sector of possibilities to just collapse and die just because some people are greedy.

Pardon my ignorance, but what possibilities? It’s been more than 10 years since BTC was promoted as “peer-to-peer money transfer with no middle men!”, but in all western countries this idea has been rejected by public due to limitations posed by blockchain itself (e.g. no reversals). The past 6 years, all I’ve seen is either ICO scams, or casino-like trading which impacts the poor mostly (same concept as why lottery is being bought by poorer population at large).

We can’t even say “oh, it’s not even mainstream yet!”, as I’m sure almost everyone has heard of Coinbase, FTX, Crypto.com and etc. through superbowl ads or casual bar conversations. So, I get a bit confused nowadays when people say “US will lose by not adopting the technology”, since there’s nothing really to adopt yet.

Re: “But the SEC let us go public” and other flawed arguments in Coinbase's defense

#222

Post by nl »

remarkEon wrote: post #146
bb88 wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

TIL to stop reading the top voted comment if it appears to be outrage and just read the article for myself instead. Just FYI here's the quote in context. She's posing a hypothetical here and not actually comparing Coinbase to a heroin dealer. This is very much in the style of Matt Levine at Bloomberg, btw. If a company went to the FDA and said “hello, we’d like to start selling heroin to the public for recreational u…

Heroin is illegal, though? Still don't understand how the analogy applies to cryptocurrency. >The company could decide the FDA was wrong... But why would they decide this? Since Heroin is, again, illegal.

In the very next paragraph she explains the analogy:

> These three functions — bringing together securities orders for buyers and sellers, trading securities on behalf of others, and intermediating trades — are typically required to be separate due to conflicts of interest that emerge when one entity controls all of them.

She is saying it is like Heroin.

>> >The company could decide the FDA was wrong...

> But why would they decide this? Since Heroin is, again, illegal.

She is pointing out how absurb it is that Coinbase has decided the SEC is wrong (about the separation of roles) since - as you point out - not having the separation of roles is illegal.

Re: “But the SEC let us go public” and other flawed arguments in Coinbase's defense

#223

Post by JumpCrisscross »

friend_and_foe wrote: post #181
bb88 wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would it have helped if she prefaced it with, "Here's a hypothetical about a company wanting to do illegal things..."? The style of argument is akin to Reductio ad Absurdum, taking an absurd position to it's logical conclusion. The "absurd position" here is a company wanting to sell heroin on the open market, and she takes that to the logical conclusion. She could have said "meth", "nuclear weapons", or "dead infants…

Youre completely.ignoring the fact that "heroin is illegal" is cut and dry. Securities are not illegal. Selling them without a license is. Asking them to clarify the law and getting told "the law is clear" is not in any way the same as selling heroin knowing it is illegal.

> that "heroin is illegal" is cut and dry

Opiates! Prescribed opiates!

Re: “But the SEC let us go public” and other flawed arguments in Coinbase's defense

#224

Post by hurtuvac78 »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #149
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> far more applicable to the question "then why were they allowed to go public?" The SEC does not approve IPOs. This is made abundantly clear in the law and rules, it is hammered into every first-year securities candidate as part of their licensing and it is front and centre on every S-1.

Well maybe they should? At least big ones. They don't need to make "merit-based judgements" to do the same security analysis they'd do after the IPO.

Would you really want a big government agency to decide on the merit of your business ehen you IPO? That seem like a good way to increase IPO's hurdles and slow down innovation.

Re: “But the SEC let us go public” and other flawed arguments in Coinbase's defense

#225

Post by JumpCrisscross »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #220
rjbwork wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The law is clear. It's not the job of regulatory agencies to advise companies on how to become compliant with the law and their rules. The law and their rules are...the law and their rules! Hire a lawyer for that!

> It's not the job of regulatory agencies to advise companies on how to become compliant with the law and their rules. Honestly this should be a core mission of all regulatory agencies and the fact that it isn't is a disgrace.

> this should be a core mission of all regulatory agencies and the fact that it isn't is a disgrace

You want public sector corporate law? If we’re socialising law, I’d think we’d start with criminal defense.

Re: “But the SEC let us go public” and other flawed arguments in Coinbase's defense

#226

Post by JumpCrisscross »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #149
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> far more applicable to the question "then why were they allowed to go public?" The SEC does not approve IPOs. This is made abundantly clear in the law and rules, it is hammered into every first-year securities candidate as part of their licensing and it is front and centre on every S-1.

Well maybe they should? At least big ones. They don't need to make "merit-based judgements" to do the same security analysis they'd do after the IPO.

> maybe they should?

Why? That’s investors’ jobs. Coinbase disclosed the risk that their entire operations may be illegal.

Re: “But the SEC let us go public” and other flawed arguments in Coinbase's defense

#227

Post by Dylan16807 »

lancewiggs wrote: post #207
Dylan16807 wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"If the SEC was in the business of making merit-based judgments on companies before they IPOed, they would need to somehow have expertise in everything from industrial filtration to financial management to projection technology to biotech to the manufacture of skincare products, bandages, and mouthwash. It’s simply not feasible, much less desirable." Yeah that part doesn't make sense. A "merit-based judgement" that r…

Their job is to make sure that the IPO document discloses everything material so that investors can make an informed decision. That’s it. In this case they would’ve been content with the disclosure that the entire business was at risk of being regulated, which is what’s happening here.

One of their jobs is to protect consumers from unregulated securities.

The earlier they act, the better, and right before IPO is the most impactful time they could intervene.

> In this case they would’ve been content with the disclosure that the entire business was at risk of being regulated

They don't have to do it, but they could make that risk disappear and it would be very good if they did so. So I wish they did have to make those decisions, unless there's some huge downside.

Re: “But the SEC let us go public” and other flawed arguments in Coinbase's defense

#228

Post by rjbwork »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #220
rjbwork wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The law is clear. It's not the job of regulatory agencies to advise companies on how to become compliant with the law and their rules. The law and their rules are...the law and their rules! Hire a lawyer for that!

> It's not the job of regulatory agencies to advise companies on how to become compliant with the law and their rules. Honestly this should be a core mission of all regulatory agencies and the fact that it isn't is a disgrace.

It would be absurdly burdensome and expensive for the government to have to advise people on how to follow the law when they're not following the law. If you're not sure how to follow the law, get an expert in the law! That's why there's a regulated profession that explicitly provides expert advice on following the law.

I don't want to press too far, because I don't think you actually meant it, but...it's like you're advocating for socialized lawyers. Which is definitely an interesting idea!

Re: “But the SEC let us go public” and other flawed arguments in Coinbase's defense

#229

Post by JumpCrisscross »

everfree wrote: post #176
KingOfCoders wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"It doesn't mean that companies can't be licensed" Licensed in this discussion obiviously meant the US. "Coinbase and a16z have already publicly stated that they have plans to set up international arms to hedge against US regulatory risk." Which is great for them I guess. "the USA's strong fintech industry" A tiny, and some might argue irrelevant, part of the US fintech industry is moving offshore. Crypto to me feels…

> A tiny, and some might argue irrelevant, part of the US fintech industry is moving offshore. You'd better be very sure of its irrelevancy before sending it all to the UK, where they're embracing it with a clear regulatory framework. If you are right, the US pushes a small ("irrelevant") amount of crime offshore. But in the off chance you are wrong, the USA risks losing their position as the world's financial superp…

> better be very sure of its irrelevancy before sending it all to the UK

Why? We’re allies and economically connected.

> the USA risks losing their position as the world's financial superpower

Wat.

> US is itself planning a version of the US dollar with a design inspired by distributed ledger technology

This project, thankfully, was dropped by the Fed after preliminary study.

Re: “But the SEC let us go public” and other flawed arguments in Coinbase's defense

#230

Post by smeagull »

loveparade wrote: post #75

I don't understand how anyone can take this obviously super-biased articles from someone who has made it their career to hate anything crypto-related seriously. It's full of personal jabs and bias like "my guess is that it’s going to involve a lot of PR stunts and headline-grabbing" It's obvious that there is zero incentive here to do any real reporting or research. It's just clickbaity headlines and statements appea…

I don't know anyone serious at this point who knows about crypto that wouldn't present a negative view of crypto for any business model.
Post reply on HN