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

231–240 of 557 posts

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

#231

Post by hef19898 »

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.

Heroin, as in heroin derivates, are not illegal. That's what a lot of hard, medical painkillers are.

Same goes for weapons in some of the countries with the most restrictions on gun sales and ownership, it is still perfectly legal to sell military grade weapons to the military in those countries.

Funny, how HN seems to qctively failing to understand how regulations and compliance works as soon as they themselves, or one of theirs, is negatively affected by them...

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

#232

Post by Dylan16807 »

hurtuvac78 wrote: post #224
Dylan16807 wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Would you really want a big government agency to decide on the merit of your business ehen you IPO?

I said the exact opposite of that. Please look at the second sentence again.

I want them to decide if I'm trading securities, especially when "this might be considered a security" is in my S1. Nothing more.

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

#233

Post by smeagull »

Doxin wrote: post #216
wmf wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some people have suggested that coins with no utility or claim on future revenue should be regulated as gambling.

I can see that being a good argument. Just because you run a casino that never cashes out doesn't mean it shouldn't be regulated as a casino.

Thus far video games are free from casino regulations.

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

#234

Post by bb88 »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #225
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I personally don't want tax dollars to fund corporate lawyering.

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

#235

Post by hef19898 »

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 is not the government's job to provide free compliance consulting services. Especially not for VC backed companies awash in cash.

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

#236

Post by JumpCrisscross »

stickfigure wrote: post #158
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…

She's comparing cryptocurrency to heroin. The parent's point stands.

> comparing cryptocurrency to heroin

Which is damn smart given we let regulated persons manufacture and distribute opiates. In this analogy, Coinbase is upset its heroin sales are illegal when a licensed pharmacist can sell a similar product.

If someone is having a strong emotional reaction, substitute any regulated product—jumbo jets, vodka, legal advice—and move on.

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

#237

Post by JumpCrisscross »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #232
hurtuvac78 wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Would you really want a big government agency to decide on the merit of your business ehen you IPO? I said the exact opposite of that. Please look at the second sentence again. I want them to decide if I'm trading securities, especially when "this might be considered a security" is in my S1. Nothing more.

> want them to decide if I'm trading securities, especially when "this might be considered a security" is in my S1. Nothing more

Investment banks would love this. It’s pro bono legal advice.

If this is important, require a legal opinion or no-action letter prior to investing in the IPO. Coinbase didn’t secure those and investors didn’t demand it. Here we are.

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

#239

Post by JumpCrisscross »

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.

> shitty to want an entire sector of possibilities to just collapse and die just because some people are greedy

Crypto could continue as an academic activity and non-commercial hobby.

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

#240

Post by growse »

mthoms wrote: post #120
8note wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For what definition of Ethereum? The one with staking?

Doesn't matter. He refused to give any indication either way. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VhA1dZXeao0

Why are people so desperate to seek legal advice from law enforcement?
Post reply on HN