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

391–400 of 557 posts

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

#391

Post by cr__ »

norswap wrote: post #383
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 Ga…

If there’s no way to register, why did they proceed?

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

#392

Post by throwaway6977 »

Eisenstein wrote: post #372
throwaway6977 wrote: post #368

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I don't think I said that. You seem to be setting up a(nother) false dichotomy here as if there can only be one end of the spectrum or the other, with no grey area or nuance in-between.

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

#393

Post by mattdesl »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #387
mattdesl wrote: post #374

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

A “hypothetical blockchain” sounds useless if it cannot legally be applied in practice. It’s the sort of draconian policy that HN commenters would abhor if it were anything but blockchain.

To use these networks—and to test & objectively measure them—you need to be able to acquire tokens.

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

#394

Post by amanaplanacanal »

scott_w wrote: post #364
sebzim4500 wrote: post #341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 p…

One way to look at it: the SEC doesn’t decide what is legal. They have an opinion, but it is the courts that decide. This is the process working as designed.

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

#395

Post by hiq »

loveparade wrote: post #157
_fizz_buzz_ wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The bias is obvious, but is there anything factually wrong in the article?

It's not about what's wrong, it's about the selection bias of what's included in such an article. You can write a technically "factually correct" article by only including statements that heavily favor one side of the argument, which is what's done here. Also, "facts" in topics that touch politics and law are complicated. This is not like science where measurement can be unambiguous. Most facts in topics such as thes…

> You can write a technically "factually correct" article by only including statements that heavily favor one side of the argument, which is what's done here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_balance

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

#396

Post by alexnewman »

- Just because something is a commodity doesn’t mean it’s not a security

- just because something is a currency doesn’t mean it’s not a security

There’s a reason why we separated exchanges, brokerages and clearing houses. Now it seems Binance is touching customer funds. Perhaps we just can cefi and use defi in crypto. If people want fiat on ramp they get a circle or tether account and redeem there

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

#397

Post by Eisenstein »

throwaway6977 wrote: post #392
Eisenstein wrote: post #372

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You want to hand judicial authority to regulatory agencies?

I don't think I said that. You seem to be setting up a(nother) false dichotomy here as if there can only be one end of the spectrum or the other, with no grey area or nuance in-between.

What is a grey area for 'makes a binding ruling regarding interpretation of law'?

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

#398

Post by PretzelPirate »

simiones wrote: post #329
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.

But they have, repeatedly, haven't they? Crypto coins except for Bitcoin are securities, and must be treated as such. Any business allowing for their trade must behave like any other securities trade business.

They haven't said that all coins other than Bitcoin are securities. They've said that most coins are securities, and former SEC members have said that Eth isn't a security, but the current SEC isn't commenting on Eth at all.

They have muddied the waters with their public comments.

Hopefully these lawsuits will provide better clarity or we'll have to wait on pending legislation to provide clarity on how the US views decentralized asset classification.

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

#399

Post by gigatexal »

cr__ wrote: post #391
norswap wrote: post #383

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 Ga…

If there’s no way to register, why did they proceed?

Getting rich off of shit-coins in this wild west of digital currencies, that's why.

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

#400

Post by TeMPOraL »

jazzyjackson wrote: post #295
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.

If you can't cash out it's just entertainment. That's why you don't have to be 18 to play pinball. [actually the history of pinball and other arcade games is fraught with legal action, there were a few iterations of payout before we got to the harmless, kid-friendly machines of today, really good podcast about it, interviewing the guy who heads the Pacific Pinball Museum: https://art19.com/shows/the-madecast/episodes…

> harmless, kid-friendly machines of today

"Kid-friendly" but really kid-robbing, though - AFAIK most of arcade games that let you win something, e.g. a toy, have subprograms that can override your victory, making it look like you've lost; those are triggered randomly, based on venue-configurable parameters like "max winning rate" and "daily wins threshold". This is designed to ensure the venue always makes a profit, by turning what's advertised as games of skill into games of luck.

What really angers me about this is not even that the nature of these machines isn't advertised to, or generally known by, parents and children, but that the way those overrides are implemented, they're quite literally gaslighting children (and for kids playing on such machines way too much, it's likely ruining their hand-eye coordination). There are many slow-motion / high-framerate YouTube videos demonstrating how these arcade games will fake input delays to turn perfectly timed win into what seems like split-second loss. And don't get me started on the fuckery that goes on with those "toy claw" games.

I feel there's something deeply corrupted about screwing up with children like that. I mean, when my kid starts playing a game and thinks she got good at it, and wants to show me how good she is, and then the software override kicks in and the game lies to her that she lost, what am I supposed to say? Gaslight her further by saying it was bad luck or still big enough of a challenge - when I know perfectly well the real reason is a bunch of greedy adults with broken moral compass adding a biased RNG to what they advertise as pure game of skill?

Post reply on HN