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

361–370 of 557 posts

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

#361

Post by LatteLazy »

The point here is that if the SEC is letting illegal businesses go public, it is doing really badly at it's job. If that is the case, it might be legal for the SEC to act that way, it would not make coinbase legal (permission to go public is not a get-out-of-jail-free card), but it would be really really damning for SEC leadership.

It would be like a cop giving a speeding ticket to a kidnapper and then letting them go because he's "just on traffic duty". That would be perfectly legal, that would not make kidnapping ok, but I'd still fire the cop for gross gross negligence.

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

#362

Post by LatteLazy »

triceratops wrote: post #5

Can anyone summarize what the stakes are here? Is a loss for Coinbase a company-ending event? Or is being forced to register all the coins that aren't BTC or ETH a costly regulatory burden? What are the implications of registering all these coins as securities? Does it affect whether they can be offered to non-accredited investors? How expensive is it? Who bears the costs?

Yes. Coinbase would need to immediately stop about 99% of its business. It's not clear how big the fines would be but also likely huge.

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

#363

Post by growse »

sebzim4500 wrote: post #330
Eisenstein wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 '…

I think there is a very important difference here, specifically that the police department is not going around deciding what is and isn't legal but the SEC is deciding what is and isn't a security.

The police department absolutely exercise discretion over what they choose to arrest people for and what they don't.

The SEC is not deciding what is legal or not, they're deciding whether or not to bring an enforcement action. The court decides if that is legal.

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

#364

Post by scott_w »

sebzim4500 wrote: post #341
scott_w wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The head of the SEC was asked by congress if Eth was a security, and true to form he refused to answer. I don't understand how anyone can believe these people act in good faith.

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

> The head of the SEC was asked by congress if Eth was a security, and true to form he refused to answer.

So what you're saying is that the Head of the SEC refused to answer a question they're not qualified to. Because it's an unsettled area of law that they're now challenging through enforcement action.

> I don't understand how anyone can believe these people act in good faith.

I could ask the same of you.

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

#365

Post by hef19898 »

az226 wrote: post #335
nickff wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What does SBF have to do with any of that?

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

#366

Post by Retric »

smeagull wrote: post #233
Doxin wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Mostly, there’s serious concerns over paid loot boxes with many countries including Japan banning them or treating them as pure gambling.

Little outdated (2020) but: https://screenrant.com/lootbox-gambling-microtransactions-il...

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

#367

Post by vermote »

smeagull wrote: post #233
Doxin wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Not in Belgium, where lootboxes have been banned.

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

#368

Post by throwaway6977 »

Eisenstein wrote: post #318
junofan wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Come on. The SEC is also a regulatory agency. Your police department isn’t.

This changes what, exactly? Are you suggesting that the government act as a free lawyer to everyone asking? Example: 'Would it be fraud if I bought an Amazon gift card with my credit card and sold it for cash since that would be a cash advance but it went through as a regular purchase?' Would you expect that the FTC answer that question for you in a binding way?

In a rational world I would absolutely expect the authorities that bind me to answer basic questions about following the rules.

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

#369

Post by saiya-jin »

hnbad wrote: post #283
saiya-jin wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

No, it was definitely Papaver somniferum, opium poppy. Nobody was regulating markets in any way back when I was growing up behind iron curtain, heroin (same with all other modern drugs bar alcohol and nicotine) was literally unheard of. I had to explain to my parents what cannabis is (and grandpa thought I was growing hemp in my youth to make some clothing or backpack).

We had maybe 30kg bag of dried poppy seeds for the winter, same as my grandparents and other friends and family, you can imagine how big the fields were. We used some of the seeds to plant next season, and this continued for decades within families, nobody was buying seeds back then.

People were not so desperate to get high and escape reality, alcohol was enough. Probably the only advantage to life in communism, that and lack of organized crime.

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

#370

Post by roenxi »

mentalpiracy wrote: post #360
roenxi wrote: post #357

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, so? Crypto isn't an investment. I haven't heard a plausible theory why its value would increase over time. It'll be lucky if the equilibrium position is value holding steady.

“not an investment” is an interesting way to describe financial instruments that are being marketed as investment vehicles. These are not magic words; repeating them does not make one immune from regulation/prosecution.

Crypto is an asset with no yield and a maintenance cost in keeping the network running. That doesn't sound like a very promising investment. If any asset counts an an investment then sure, it is that. But it isn't going to be a money maker.

Over time it is probably going to behave more like savings. The price looks like it might be stabilising with respect to gold which is an interesting thing [0].

[0] https://www.longtermtrends.net/bitcoin-vs-gold/

Post reply on HN