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

331–340 of 557 posts

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

#331

Post by sebzim4500 »

scott_w wrote: post #274
rockemsockem wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds like they expected in advance for the SEC to do something stupid and were very upfront about that fact. Now that the SEC has done a stupid thing they are complaining that the SEC in fact did the stupid thing. Sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

Enforcement agencies don't have to stop you ahead of time, even if that action is disallowed or even illegal. For example, police officers will regularly sit by the side of the road with a speed gun. They'll make no attempt to stop you driving at 150mph on the motorway but, in the UK, you'll receive a court summons through your door after the fact (and probably lose your license).

And if that same policeman happened to be speaking to parliament and was asked whether going 150 mph was legal he would be able to give a clear answer.

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

#332

Post by simiones »

hbbio wrote: post #289
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…

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

The fact that the listing was approved is immaterial to whether the business is breaking securities law. The SEC is not required to verify that you are running a legitimate business before allowing you to IPO. They are only required to confirm that the data in the forms you mentioned represents your business correctly.

The Coinbase S1 admits this explicitly: they explicitly list the risk of their business model being contested by the SEC later in the document that the SEC approved.

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

#333

Post by xioxox »

sebzim4500 wrote: post #331
scott_w wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Enforcement agencies don't have to stop you ahead of time, even if that action is disallowed or even illegal. For example, police officers will regularly sit by the side of the road with a speed gun. They'll make no attempt to stop you driving at 150mph on the motorway but, in the UK, you'll receive a court summons through your door after the fact (and probably lose your license).

And if that same policeman happened to be speaking to parliament and was asked whether going 150 mph was legal he would be able to give a clear answer.

A better example is HMRC, the tax authority, in the UK. They won't tell you if your tax avoidance scheme is legal or not, but they will fine you or take you to court if they later decide it is not.

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

#334

Post by scott_w »

sebzim4500 wrote: post #331
scott_w wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Enforcement agencies don't have to stop you ahead of time, even if that action is disallowed or even illegal. For example, police officers will regularly sit by the side of the road with a speed gun. They'll make no attempt to stop you driving at 150mph on the motorway but, in the UK, you'll receive a court summons through your door after the fact (and probably lose your license).

And if that same policeman happened to be speaking to parliament and was asked whether going 150 mph was legal he would be able to give a clear answer.

Two things:

1. Firstly, if the law isn't settled, then no they wouldn't.

2. The SEC weren't being asked by Congress, they were being asked by Coinbase.

So no, your attempt to torture the analogy doesn't work at all.

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

#335

Post by az226 »

nickff wrote: post #32
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…

I suspect that Gensler was obfuscating intentionally when asked about cryptocurrency. Modern regulators seem to prefer retrospective punishment over prospective advice and regulation.

I mean he was chumming up FTX before it imploded. He seems personally butthurt about crypto for some reason. He’s contradicting himself on statements just a few years ago. He has the maturity of a child, playing games.

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

#336

Post by KptMarchewa »

Eisenstein wrote: post #288
friend_and_foe wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 '…

IDK, you can ask polish tax authority for a individual interpretation of law and it's binding in court.

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

#337

Post by SilverBirch »

Look guys, people are allowed to write articles with an opinion you disagree with. If you want to tell us all you stopped reading when a comparison was that you feel is unfair take a moment to reflect that really, that just makes you look silly and tells us nothing about the article. It's honestly the weakest form of critique.

I think she raises some really salient points, and it looks extremely bad that the CEO of Coinbase is making clearly specious arguments. I don't believe the SEC's approval of his filing says anything about the regulations around this securities law. I think he thinks he can win some cheap PR points with people who don't know any better. Acting like that does indicate that he probably doesn't have any real defense. People don't make bad arguments if they have good ones available to them.

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

#338

Post by al_be_back »

>> “Remember: The SEC reviewed our business and allowed us to become a public company in 2021.”

If it's normal for a startup to patch their software to keep up-to-date with changes/time, I wouldn't be surprised if SEC / Gov / Justice Dept updated their Views/Position with time!

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

#339

Post by MrPatan »

So we're killing crypto again. Okay! This time around just buy some while it's cheap. You may learn a thing or two. About finance, and about yourself.

At 50k you remembered checking it when it was 25k, and regretted not buying. Well, it's 25k again, lucky you!

But wait! Is this me trying to help you? Shill my bags? Or trying to reverse-psyops you into staying a nocoiner? Take your pick!

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

#340

Post by ceejayoz »

paulddraper wrote: post #187
vba616 wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It suggests bad faith to ask why the SEC didn't crack down earlier. Sure, it was politics, but it seems entirely understandable. We all know that before the crypto bust, a lot of people would've been starting a witch hunt if the SEC had tried to enforce the law. Congress, for starters. Gensler is being opportunistic now because that's the reality they have to work with. The wealthy and powerful in this country take i…

Huh??? The SEC decides when, what, and for whom it enforces rules?

This is extremely common practice in our system. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosecutorial_discretion
Post reply on HN