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

261–270 of 557 posts

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

#261

Post by raverbashing »

rjbwork wrote: post #228
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.

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…

Actually the law is not always clear cut and there's a lot of clarifications, appeals, etc that are brought to the regulatory agencies

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

#262

Post by everfree »

jeltz wrote: post #242
everfree wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If a company can't use a piece of accounting software that's gaining worldwide relevance, that's the company's problem. If an entire country can't use a piece of accounting software that's gaining worldwide relevance, that's the country's problem.

Here in the real world that is the software company's problem. Countries do not change their laws just to make some random accounting software company happy, unless they bribe some politicians first. Accounting software have tons of local adaptations.

>Countries do not change their laws just to make some random accounting software company happy

Countries change laws to give their citizens access to important products. It's not about the company.

The USA didn't decide to rewrite existing telephony laws for VOIP in the 90s because they wanted to give Skype a handout, they did it because they understood the potential benefits of internet telephony for the populous.

> Accounting software have tons of local adaptations.

You can't locally adapt a ledger that is globally shared across all the other countries. Either you allow the ledger in your country or you don't.

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

#263

Post by Eisenstein »

arcticbull wrote: post #208
RestlessMind wrote: post #25

I like reasoned critiques of crypto. Heck, I think many crypto actors are scammers and should be punished. However, a lot of crypto is legit and this piece reeks of bias. Some examples: - comparison with heroin - wtf? To extend that ridiculous analogy, it would be akin to FDA approving heroin based products (similar to how SEC approved Bitcoin ETF in 2021) and then going after heroin. What message is SEC trying to de…

> To extend that ridiculous analogy, it would be akin to FDA approving heroin based products (similar to how SEC approved Bitcoin ETF in 2021) and then going after heroin. So uh, you know you just described the opioid crisis in a nutshell right? Modern opioid painkillers are in fact generally if not entirely accurately, 'heroin based products.' Not just that, prior to the Narcotics Tax Act of 1914 it was kind of a fr…

I hate to do this but I don't want people to read your comment and make that their understanding of history:

The FDA did not exist until 1930. Even if you count the predecessor agencies they did not 'approve' drugs. They were tasked with fraud prevention (selling things that weren't what they claimed to be) and safety in the sense that the product wasn't poison, but not with ensuring that the thing it claimed to be was actually safe. The legislation which gave the FDA authority to restrict drugs to prescription use and require safety and efficacy approval was the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act which was passed in 1938.

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

#264

Post by AnthonyMouse »

bb88 wrote: post #256
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But that's ridiculously inefficient compared to just going to the regulatory agency before you do the ambiguous thing and having them clarify it. Except that they won't do it.

Coinbase makes their money by working in a grey area. Why should the public subsidize (or reward) Coinbase for their shady business strategy? Why can't it be part of Coinbase's business strategy to remain on the correct side of the law and then lobby congress for changes to those laws? That's how it's been done for the past two centuries. Why change now?

> Coinbase makes their money by working in a grey area. Why should the public subsidize large businesses in this way?

Because the public through its government is what created the grey area, so it should cover the cost of its lack of clarity, as a disincentive for causing it.

> Why can't it be part of Coinbase's business strategy to remain on the correct side of the law and then lobby congress for changes to those laws?

The entire point is that nobody will say whether they're allowed to do this, so they can't even know if they're on the correct side of the law. How dumb is it that the only way to find out if you can legally do something is to do it without knowing whether you're allowed to?

> That's how it's been done for the past two centuries. Why change now?

The best time to change a bad rule is two centuries ago. The second best time is immediately.

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

#265

Post by rvz »

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.

Well their entire careers is to endlessly scream the complete destruction of all cryptocurrencies, which is simply not going to happen. It's all about the rolling out of the FedNow rails, to place their own CBDCs there.

Overall, this outrage (and the article) is nothing short of wanton alarmism and sensationalisation of the situation. Not a mention of the Ripple Labs vs. SEC case which in the latest of the case the SEC attempted to request the sealing of documents on Hinman's speech in 2018 which that request was denied [0] and will benefit Ripple's case against the SEC's internal decision making of the matter which is also relevant to the current Coinbase vs. SEC litigation.

China on the other hand is now doing the exact opposite. [1]

[0] https://www.dropbox.com/s/c3mfvibgxig0vrx/Decision%20Denying...

[1] https://www.ubs.com/global/en/media/display-page-ndp/en-2023...

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

#266

Post by bb88 »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #264
bb88 wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Coinbase makes their money by working in a grey area. Why should the public subsidize (or reward) Coinbase for their shady business strategy? Why can't it be part of Coinbase's business strategy to remain on the correct side of the law and then lobby congress for changes to those laws? That's how it's been done for the past two centuries. Why change now?

> Coinbase makes their money by working in a grey area. Why should the public subsidize large businesses in this way? Because the public through its government is what created the grey area, so it should cover the cost of its lack of clarity, as a disincentive for causing it. > Why can't it be part of Coinbase's business strategy to remain on the correct side of the law and then lobby congress for changes to those la…

> The entire point is that nobody will say whether they're allowed to do this, so they can't even know if they're on the correct side of the law. How dumb is it that the only way to find out if you can legally do something is to do it without knowing whether you're allowed to?

Isn't that the point of hiring an attorney, or if you're Coinbase, a large team of lawyers? We don't know what Coinbase's lawyers said to them (attorney client privilege). But this could just be a legal ruse, right? Raise doubt? Even though Coinbase knew they were in a shady area and raised it in their S1 filing?

Or do you think Coinbase was really this stupid and naive?

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

#267

Post by Linosaurus »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #236
stickfigure wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> In this analogy, Coinbase is upset its heroin sales are illegal when a licensed pharmacist can sell a similar product.

In this analogy Coinbase' story seems to be that they asked how to apply to become a licensed pharmacist, but never got an answer. While the SEC suggests they never tried.

This gets confusing when the crime is phrased as unregistered heroin sales.

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

#268

Post by AnthonyMouse »

bb88 wrote: post #266
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Coinbase makes their money by working in a grey area. Why should the public subsidize large businesses in this way? Because the public through its government is what created the grey area, so it should cover the cost of its lack of clarity, as a disincentive for causing it. > Why can't it be part of Coinbase's business strategy to remain on the correct side of the law and then lobby congress for changes to those la…

> The entire point is that nobody will say whether they're allowed to do this, so they can't even know if they're on the correct side of the law. How dumb is it that the only way to find out if you can legally do something is to do it without knowing whether you're allowed to? Isn't that the point of hiring an attorney, or if you're Coinbase, a large team of lawyers? We don't know what Coinbase's lawyers said to them…

Lawyers can tell you whether an ambiguity exists, not how it will be resolved. To find that out you have to do it and then see if you get punished, which is absurd.

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

#269

Post by mmahut »

growse wrote: post #240
mthoms wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

It happens when the law is not clear and the law enforcement has to take a stand on it to enforce it.

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

#270

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN