Live data from Hacker News

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

newsletter.mollywhite.net

371–380 of 557 posts

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

#371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not centralized...

What do you call the group of developers who control write access and pull request approvals for the Bitcoin Core GitHub repository? You can't just apply to become one of these devs; they're grandfathered in from the early days. And they're the sole group who effectively have the final say on what features make it into the network protocol. To me, that sounds like a centralized team employing centralized decision mak…

The Bitcoin network is steered by these developers, but as we saw with the User Acitvated Soft Fork (UASF) of 2016, the users ultimately decide what Bitcoin is.

The vast number of users, or at least, those who run their own node, choose to run a forked version of the client software that activated a contentious upgrade (the upgrade was Segregated Witness).

Only after the fact, this code was merged into the Core branch.

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

#372

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You want to hand judicial authority to regulatory agencies?

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

#373

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Commenting on a news article doesn't mean you care what happens to the subject of the article. Your comment is not only pointless and petty, it's wrong.

No, it's an adoption from "If you're reading it, it's for you" by The Last Psychiatrist. Not that I'm as clever as he is. Pointless seems in the eye of the beholder. If you don't understand something, the easiest thing is to condemn it and call the person who made the comment stupid.

> "If you're reading it, it's for you"

"It" here would have to be the situation/article, right?

The thing they don't care about is what will happen to Coinbase in the future. They're not reading that.

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

#374

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.

How? If CEX operations are restricted in the US due to excessive, antiquated, or ambiguous regulations, citizens would be left with fewer ways to acquire these assets including research and hobby usage.

To continue with Molly’s drug analogy: look at psilocybin, where academic, hobbyist, and medical research in them has been delayed for many decades due to unreasonable legal restrictions and ideological campaigns against them.

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

#375

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…

The analogy was about Binance's desire to be a broker, exchange and clearinghouse at the same time, something the SEC is specifically tasked to prevent (as far as I understood it). That doesn't have to do anything with the Blockchain technology in general - and it seems reasonable to me that if Coinbase conflates those two things, they are trying to muddy the waters, nothing more.

A more specific analogy might go like this: Imagine some awesome new biotech startup that develops a completely new method to interact with cells - activate cellular receptors through long-distance quantum tunneling and gravitational nanolensing or whatever. Then it packages that tech into small, consumer-friendly devices which are programmed to activate a specific metabolic pathway in the wearer's brain: As it happens, that pathway is the exact same that is activated through heroin. Then they sell those devices to the general public without any restrictions.

One day, the FDA knocks on the door and says "hey guys, your tech is cool and all and we're sure it can trigger all kinds of amazing medical breakthroughs - but right now, you're using it as heroin with extra steps. And selling hard drugs for recreational use is forbidden."

To which the startup guys might reply "oh no no no mister, we're not in the business of making drugs, we're actually a long-distance quantum tunneling/gravitational nanolensing company. You see, this is such a new field and fundamentally incomparable with anything that came before it that, unfortunately, there are no laws yet that we would fall under. However, we absolutely do see the need for regulation, and we're willing to work with you and together arrive at a sensible set of guidelines that won't stifle the immense potential for innovation of that field..."

At which point the FDA guy would probably tell them to cut their bullshit and the startup might respond with some long rant about how a tyrannical FDA literally suffocates American innovators or something.

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

#376
post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The SEC apparently won't decide if Ethereum is a security so it seems pretty complicated to me. I'm not going to insist the answers are obvious in such a legal minefield.

What does that have to do with the price of butter? Coinbase isn't being sued because it's trading Eth. It's being sued because it's trading a lot of things that aren't BTC or Eth.

> It's being sued because it's trading a lot of things that aren't BTC or Eth.

Which the SEC was also refusing to rule on, even though it would have been easy and consumer-protective to get that done within a month or two of the coins gaining popularity.

If I don't treat that as uncertainty, I guess I have to assign significantly worse motivations...

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

#378
When approving the S-1, the SEC was asked to review a business, not one selling filtration technology, but one selling illegal securities, well within their area of expertise.

I think Americans should fairly expect their regulators to be clear enough about the rules that the very securities regulator, whose job in large part it is to protect retail investors, not allow a company who is in the business of selling illegal securities to go public, and then take multiple years to file suit.

Any crypto sceptic who does not see a problem with this is tainted by their priors.

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

#379

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?

The stock price would seem to suggest it's a long way from being a company-ending event, otherwise it would be $5 instead of $50. one of the nice things about the EMH is it gives a good heuristic of assessing how important or serious something is, just by looking at how the stock price reacts, without having to understand the actual details. much of the problem has to do with staking.

That's what a lot of people said about Wirecard up to almost the very end.

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

#380
post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

> a completely flawed comparison, not because of the matter but because unlike the hypothetical heroin case, the SEC did approve the listing The SEC doesn't approve IPOs. In bold among Coinbase's S-1's cover pages: "Neither the Securities and Exchange Commission nor any other regulatory body has approved or disapproved of these securities or passed upon the accuracy or adequacy of this prospectus. Any representation…

Nobody reads those boring SEC filings if they can have media reports about companies PR pieces instead.
Post reply on HN