Live data from Hacker News

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

newsletter.mollywhite.net

501–510 of 557 posts

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

#501

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is nothing in the law that explicitly prevents the registration of a cryptocurrency. The problem is that the people making them are not able to answer the kinds of questions the SEC asks. How many cryptocurrency companies do you know of that could pass an audit? Even when ICOs aren't out-and-out scams I have never encountered one transparent enough for me to want to touch it with a ten foot pole. Why should the…

> How many cryptocurrency companies do you know of that could pass an audit? This is, quite simply, zeitgeisty prejudice. Most well-funded cryptocurrency companies have passed audits. I've worked for or with four crypto companies and three of them were audited (also all of them still exist). You aren't allowed to count "fraud cryptobros from miami creating an ICO" if you don't count "fraud fratbros from harvard/yale…

> Most well-funded cryptocurrency companies have passed audits.

This is true in practice but untrue in spirit. Any nonsense project can pass an audit by hiring an equally nonsense auditor.

> You aren't allowed to count "fraud cryptobros from miami creating an ICO" if you don't count "fraud fratbros from harvard/yale creating a hedge fund". And if you do count both, then you'll notice that the proportion of fraud is roughly the same everywhere, we just allow ourselves to notice it in some places more than others.

This is blatantly untrue. Yes, there are plenty of forms of fraud which occur in hedge funds, but the public is shielded from many of these, because the most obvious forms of fraud were recognized and regulated decades ago. There's practically no such protections around crypto, and as a result, a whole host of obvious scams have flourished.

If you talk to almost any crypto investor, most of them have been scammed at some point. The same is not true of investors in traditional markets.

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

#502
post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"In Ethereum, a centralized group of people put together a public sale of the token, promising great returns in exchange due to their visionary ideas. This is all perfectly fine, except they didn't register their sale as a security" If I write a book with visionary ideas that promises to change your life (great returns) and continue to work on revisions as I come up with new ideas - should I register it as a security…

> If I write a book with visionary ideas that promises to change your life (great returns) and continue to work on revisions as I come up with new ideas - should I register it as a security before I can sell my book Is there an expectation of profit in those buying your book? No? Then it’s not a security. It’s a multi-prong test. Investor protection laws are substantial; everything is constantly being challenged in c…

Everyone buying a book expects to profit at least as much as the cost of the book from it

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

#503
post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s why it’s a systemic failure . Years of law study to interpret laws with context long dropped. The fact that the sec let Coinbase last this long is proof the system is over complicated and cannot be maintained efficiently.

> The fact that the sec let Coinbase last this long is proof the system is over complicated and cannot be maintained efficiently. I disagree with this assessment, but reasonable people can hold differing opinions on this.

"you can run a company for nearly a decade while spending a great deal on lawyers talking to the government the whole time and still have no clue if your business is legal"

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

#504

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is nothing in the law that explicitly prevents the registration of a cryptocurrency. The problem is that the people making them are not able to answer the kinds of questions the SEC asks. How many cryptocurrency companies do you know of that could pass an audit? Even when ICOs aren't out-and-out scams I have never encountered one transparent enough for me to want to touch it with a ten foot pole. Why should the…

> How many cryptocurrency companies do you know of that could pass an audit? This is, quite simply, zeitgeisty prejudice. Most well-funded cryptocurrency companies have passed audits. I've worked for or with four crypto companies and three of them were audited (also all of them still exist). You aren't allowed to count "fraud cryptobros from miami creating an ICO" if you don't count "fraud fratbros from harvard/yale…

How were they audited?

You can absolutely legally register your cryptocurrency as a security. The requirements just make it a non-starter.

There's is nothing inherently different between cryptocurrencies and securities. The accounting is irrelevant. If you promise people that their money will increase in value if they invest, then you need to register as a security if you want to sell to retail customers. You can continue selling the unregistered securities all you want to professional traders.

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

#505

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…

> 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 You’re describing regulated opiates versus street heroin. That is the point. Nobody thinks street heroin distributors can reasonably be shocked they’re breaking the law just because pharmacists distribute similar produc…

> The SEC isn’t doing anything to suggest it claims jurisdiction over Ethereum. (It’s also not at his discretion.)

That's the thing - they are not clarifying whether they have jurisdiction or not. And then you have to play the guessing game, with CFTC also chiming in about their preferences.

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

#506

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…

Provide some evidence, any evidence, of your allegations of tyranny. Just because he's being mean to crypto doesn't make him tyrannical.

Example: regulation by enforcement.

What he should have done: clarified upfront the status of Crypto tokens, like "X, Y, Z are commodities. A, B, C are securities" etc. And then offer a path to register those securities so that Coinbases of the world can start offering them properly.

What he did: sued Coinbase for trading 10-11 tokens as unregistered securities. And good players still don't know how to register Crypto tokens with SEC as securities.

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

#507

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed, but entirely irrelevant to the point at hand.

> entirely irrelevant to the point at hand What? The laws Coinbase is being charged with violating are creatures of the Congress and courts, not the administrative state. This is not a case of "the agency that enforces the rules is also charged with creating them" [1]. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36307273

Coinbase wants the SEC to come up with a process for them to register with the SEC that's amenable to cryptocurrency, via a "petition for rulemaking"; https://www.sec.gov/rules/petitions/2022/petn4-789.pdf. (The SEC is, rightly IMO, saying "nah".)

Again, the point is that both Congress and the SEC make "the rules" around securities. Congress defined securities and gave the SEC the ability to write the rules for securities, with some specific requirements. The SEC's rules can't violate the various Acts of Congress, but they've still got quite a bit of rule-making power delegated to them.

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

#508
post #2

It is scary to me how much legislating is done by these government bodies inside the (executive ?) branch. I do sympathize with anyone trying to get clear requirements in black and white terms of what is and isn’t acceptable . I think this is more of a systemic failure.

> clear requirements in black and white terms of what is and isn’t acceptable. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you have been misled by this frequently made claim. It’s just not true. The requirements have been clearly stated for a long time, they’re just not what people in the crypto space want to hear, so they pretend the guidance and law doesn’t exist. This document dates from 2019 and lays out in…

> The SEC has repeatedly and publicly stated in no uncertain terms, what the definition of a security is and also identified specific coins

The head of the SEC was asked point blank multiple times if a little thing called "Etherium" was a security.

He refused over and over the opportunity to be clear and certain.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VhA1dZXeao0

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

#509

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When the SEC had a disagreement about the category of an asset or transaction, they would go to court to hoping to get the judge to agree those were securities being traded noncompliantly, with the defendant being the issuer After getting an agreeing verdict on that they would go to the promoters and exchanges and sue them too Now they're skipping that and going straight to the exchanges, because the SEC wasn't exact…

Coinbase is a lot more accessible to the SEC than a shitcoin out of China or Bulgaria or whatnot. It's hardly an unreasonable choice, and I'm not aware of any legal theory that says the SEC can't (or even shouldn't) take that approach.

Coinbase needs far better defenses than they are using, definitely screams incompetence on their end too

There are defenses to the SEC’s approach as it has nothing to do with the remoteness of some issuers, it has to do with the shaky legal ground and symbiosis that the SEC has relied upon. The SEC’s standard can be equally applied to anyone that purchased a baseball card hoping to flip it, where that unilaterally makes all shops and ebay to be unregistered securities exchanges in violation of Federal Securities laws no matter what the baseball card company did to ensure otherwise. Either all consumer product industries and intermediaries are affected, or most crypto tokens aren't at all. Or there is a clear way to make a crypto token that fits into the consumer product framework exclusively, but the SEC wont say and says “its always been clear”. Thats pretty much where we are, based on the SEC’s own logic used in this very case.

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

#510
post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The SEC is not part of the executive branch. It is an independent agency. While it is also not part of the legislative branch, the legislative branch is the one that effectively controls it.

> The SEC is not part of the executive branch. You are mistaken. The SEC is very much a part of the executive branch. > It is an independent agency So is the CIA. This just is a term of art for a particular type of executive agency distinct from a cabinet department with additional insulation from political control. SEC commissioners are nominated by POTUS and confirmed by the senate, a characteristic unique to the l…

Yes and no.

"Independent agencies exist outside of the federal executive branch. More specifically, the term is used to describe agencies that, while constitutionally part of the executive branch, are independent of presidential control, usually because the president's power to dismiss the agency head or a member is limited."

https://pitt.libguides.com/usgovinfo/independentagencies

Post reply on HN