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

381–390 of 557 posts

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

#381

Post by q1w2 »

miracle2k wrote: post #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 ill…

Think about this in a more practical mindset.

While crypto was growing and experimenting and not causing great harm, the regulators were happy to let it do its thing.

The moment major losses occurred due to large scale fraud collapses, THAT is when the regulators decided to pay more attention and look for rules that might be getting broken.

Moreover, with the increased use of crypto by nation states such as North Korea, Russia, Iran, Hamas, etc... to evade sanctions and launder money, and the general lack of any material crypto economy, then parts of the gov't, in general, are starting to think the show needs to end for crypto - and are talking to regulators to shut down exchanges.

That is why there are no "productive conversations" between Coinbase and regulators. The regulators don't want to give them any valid methods of operating - because they NOW don't want them to operate at all.

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

#382

Post by _fat_santa »

yobid20 wrote: post #377

Will coinbase pull out of US? I hope not. Limited options for ny users to exchange with usd.

No. Part of the reason they went public is to show: “hey look we’re a publicly traded American company, not some legal entity operating out of a Caribbean country”. Them remaining an American company is a big part of their pitch for choosing them over others.

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

#383

Post by norswap »

crazygringo wrote: post #12

> Coinbase, as with most crypto platforms, has decided it wants to simultaneously operate as an exchange, broker-dealer, and clearing agency. These three functions — bringing together securities orders for buyers and sellers, trading securities on behalf of others, and intermediating trades — are typically required to be separate due to conflicts of interest that emerge when one entity controls all of them. Coinbase…

It's important to note that event for the projects creating new tokens, there is NO WAY to register.

It exists, in theory. Many people have tried, nothing has progressed even an inch. It's not even a matter of the SEC putting out a list of clear conditions that people deem unacceptable. Instead, the applications just seem to be mired in bureaucracy.

As I understand, there is deliberate gaslighting from the SEC and Gary Gensler.

Gary keeps telling the media "the law is clear" and "companies should come and register", but then never answer's even congress' own questions on what constitutes a security, and makes it impossible for crypto projects to register.

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

#384

Post by AniseAbyss »

Doxin wrote: post #216
wmf wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some people have suggested that coins with no utility or claim on future revenue should be regulated as gambling.

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.

[dead]

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

#385

Post by hef19898 »

ethanbond wrote: post #358
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Can I give you, for example, Amazon shared and get a coffee or a pizza ? Directly, not liquidate it first. No, this is specifically addressed by securities law. It's not impossible, but you have to do it properly.

what’s next, are you going to tell me that I can’t realize millions of dollars in crypto gains without paying income tax? Inconceivable!

You mean tax avoidance ain't legal??? Outrageous!

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

#386

Post by itsoktocry »

miracle2k wrote: post #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 ill…

>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

First, it's not ideal, but an investigation takes time.

Second, had the SEC said "we're not allowing you to go public because we think your business might be breaking ambiguous laws" it would have destroyed Coinbase with a combination of reputuational damage and the inability to raise money to operate. All for something that might be true but was unproven? That doesn't sound ideal, either.

By the way, love the "anyone who thinks otherwise is tainted" bit at the end, it truly speaks to our political climate.

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

#387

Post by JumpCrisscross »

mattdesl wrote: post #374
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 agai…

> 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

They can publish hypothetical blockchains in peer-reviewed journals and sell overseas. The point is to separate "acquir[ing] these assets," which has been a money pit, from the potential benefits of the data structure and technology.

The emerging system appears to be China outsourcing this work to Hong Kong and America to London. We don't want the mess at home. But nobody wants to write off the people and projects.

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

#388

Post by lukeramsden »

everfree wrote: post #213
refulgentis wrote: post #173

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 difference is that nobody has to actually accept updates that the core team make - and this has happened a few times, resulting in forks, although those cases were for things the core team refused to do - how can you “fork” a security? What is the common enterprise when forking a PoW chain?

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

#389

Post by H8crilA »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #354
H8crilA wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No one is allowed to deal in unregistered securities.

> No one is allowed to deal in unregistered securities All of VC happens with unregistered securities.

You got me :)

Accredited investors make an exception.

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

#390

Post by linuxftw »

miracle2k wrote: post #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 ill…

Well, not really. When they decided to file the S-1, they were likely in a very different business model, and the underlying cryptos (for the most part) were very much non-scams (as far as that can be applied to cryptos).

It would be like going public as a company that looked like ebay, and then later most of your userbase is buying and selling heroin, and now your business totally revolves around the heroin, and you've taken certain steps to encourage and participate in this heroin market directly.

Post reply on HN