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

281–290 of 557 posts

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

#281

Post by worklaptopacct »

saiya-jin wrote: post #271
arcticbull wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> Opium was used to settle fussy babies (note, I'm sure it was very effective) In central/eastern Europe, there was historically brew/tea being done from poppy heads, to calm down babies. Generally poppy growing is very much allowed in places like Slovakia and Czech republic and part of many cakes and pastries, and nobody thought about doing opium/heroin out of it. But go over the border to Poland and its all banned,…

Huh, TIL. Looked it up and they loosened up the regulations last year to permit growing poppies for personal use. It's bizzare given that poppy seeds are a very common ingredient in our cakes and pastries.

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

#282

Post by JumpCrisscross »

WinstonSmith84 wrote: post #276
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 You’re describing regulated opiates versus street heroin. That is the point. Nobody thinks street heroin distributors can reasonably be shocked they’re breaking the law just because pharmacists distribute similar produc…

> Is he required to? Not knowing the answer to the most obvious question is mildly embarrassing, to say the least. It's clear that he didn't do his due diligence and jeopardized the SEC competency and integrity. His very clear conflict of interests with FTX (i.e. Sam) and Binance (where he was refused a position some years ago) were already not really helping. And yeah, not knowing the most obvious answer just begs a…

> Not knowing the answer to the most obvious question is mildly embarrassing, to say the least

Whether Ethereum is a security is far from obvious. Had Gensler acted like it was, he would have lost credibility. In any case, it's irrelevant to Coinbase, who weren't charged in relation to their Bitcoin or Ether trading.

> how shall all these crypto exchanges have known (better than the SEC) that A, B or C are a commodity but D or E aren't

The SEC released The DAO Report in 2017 laying out a framework [1]. This is when crypto's lobbying stepped up; the status quo was clear. They wanted a different one.

> while the world is watching China toying with Ethereum

China has banned crypto since 2021 [2]. BOCI's $30mm placement in Hong Kong through UBS is interesting, but far from a belwether [3]. (UBS Tokenize has been selling digital assets to wealth management clients in Hong Kong and Singapore for a while.)

[1] https://www.sec.gov/litigation/investreport/34-81207.pdf

[2] https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-58678907

[3] 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

#283

Post by hnbad »

saiya-jin wrote: post #271
arcticbull wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> Opium was used to settle fussy babies (note, I'm sure it was very effective) In central/eastern Europe, there was historically brew/tea being done from poppy heads, to calm down babies. Generally poppy growing is very much allowed in places like Slovakia and Czech republic and part of many cakes and pastries, and nobody thought about doing opium/heroin out of it. But go over the border to Poland and its all banned,…

I think you're dangerously conflating opium and poppy just like people sometimes conflate cannabis and hemp.

I can't speak for all of Europe but here's how it works in Germany: Poppies aren't banned, poppies that can be used to produce opioids ("opium poppies") are. Likewise hemp isn't banned in most of Europe, hemp that has a high THC content is. Actually hemp is more strictly controlled (e.g. you need a license to grow hemp at all and high THC hemp is banned outright) whereas you'll find poppies grow by the wayside or sold at florists - unthinkable for hemp. In Germany (like Poland) poppy seeds are also a staple for bread and sweet pastries, so you'll find them in the baking section of most supermarkets (tho they're likely no good for growing).

Also a fun fact: poppy seeds can set off drug tests so if you know you are going to take one, it's recommended you don't eat anything with poppy seeds in it and if you did, you're supposed to inform the person performing the test because it will skew the results. There are trace amounts of opium in regular poppies even though it's not enough to use them to produce actual opium.

Anecdotally, my grandmother told me that when she was a child it was considered normal to douse a knotted rag in hard liquor and let fussy babies suckle on that.

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

#284

Post by _fizz_buzz_ »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #132
cypress66 wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A congressman asked gensler face to face if ethereum is a security and gensler declined to answer. So no, the SEC has not been clear.

> congressman asked gensler face to face if ethereum is a security and gensler declined to answer The SEC has brought zero enforcement action that turns on Bitcoin or Ether being securities. Somewhat hilariously, these complaints are an industry endemic with bullshitters flipping out about Gensler being able to say “I don’t know.”

Basically, Gensler is throwing them a bone. Ethereum is very obviously a security but the SEC decided it has been too long since the ICO, it's too big and too decentralized to now go after it. Pretending not to know if Ethereum is a security is a gift from the SEC to the crypto industry and crypto folks should probably shut up about this asap before the SEC feels their gift isn't appreciated.

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

#285

Post by jazzyjackson »

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 enjoy reading a perspective with a little passion behind it, a little anger, some eye-rolling. It's entertainment, not wikipedia.

I already agree with Molly, but I'm getting to learn a few things that are going on while enjoying her rant. She's not trying to persuade any crypto-fans, she's just expressing her exasperation.

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

#286

Post by jazzyjackson »

loveparade wrote: post #174
refulgentis wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's called "expressing an opinion." What world would we live in if the very fact we wanted to talk about something meant we couldn't? You're welcome to write a rebuttal but you're attacking the messenger repeatedly instead. She wrote a cogent concise article that describes what's going on in the real world. Now, we await your brilliance, as soon as you're done repeatedly telling us it's "her career."

Nothing wrong with expressing an opinion, it's just sad to consistently see these highly biased and political opinions being upvoted on a website that's supposedly about rational thinking, not political incentives. I would expect upvoted articles here to strike a fair balance in presenting both sides of the argument, not just one.

I've been here for a few years and never got the impression that this was a rationalist, both-sides kind of site. People submit interesting articles, not fair and balanced coverage of some political debate.

From the submission guidelines:

"Anything that good hackers would find interesting. [...] anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity.

Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, or celebrities [...] If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic."

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

#287

Post by hef19898 »

friend_and_foe wrote: post #257
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Theres a distinction somewhere between "socializing law" and "tell me why you'd sue me before I do it accidentally."

The latter isn't a thing so. Especially if, as Coinbase and Binance did, ignore willingly the most basic rules around ypur business because of tech, innovation, disruption and the internet.

About time that reality checks happen.

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

#288

Post by Eisenstein »

friend_and_foe wrote: post #259
growse wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you think that if the SEC thinks that Coinbase is operating some sort of unregulated securities exchange, that they should bring some sort of enforcement action?

Yes, but I think first, they ought to tell us what their criteria is in no uncertain terms.

Sorry but law enforcement entities do not have a mandate for, nor are they required to, tell you specifically whether an act is expressly legal or illegal if you ask them.

Call a police department and ask them if you are allowed to bury your recently deceased relative on your property. They will tell you to get a lawyer. If they feel like arresting you for illegal disposal of human remains you can't use the defense 'but I asked them and they wouldn't tell me'.

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

#289

Post by hbbio »

bb88 wrote: post #127
everfree wrote: post #13

I stopped reading the article when it started comparing cryptocurrency exchanges to the business of selling heroin. No matter your opinion on the issue, that's just alarmist nonsense. I agree that it's reasonable to apply existing securities laws to cryptocurrency, and I agree that "but they let us go public" is a bad argument, but Gensler's SEC has also been intentionally obtuse about how those securities laws shoul…

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…

Which is a completely flawed comparison, not because of the matter but because unlike the hypothetical heroin case, the SEC *did approve the listing*.

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

#290

Post by bb88 »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #268
bb88 wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Or avoid operating in ambiguity altogether. It's not really that hard!
Post reply on HN