551–557 of 557 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Huh??? The SEC decides when, what, and for whom it enforces rules?
This is extremely common practice in our system. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosecutorial_discretion
As if there is a system that catches, charges, prosecutes and/or convicts everyone who breaks the law.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Because that is what the SEC is alleging in their lawsuit. And investigations obviously take time. We don’t want a securities regulator who blindly files lawsuits against public companies. Sorry but your arguments aren’t very convincing and I really dislike crypto.
> And investigations obviously take time. Maybe the SEC will be able to lay out in court that they have been very busy with their investigation since 2019 (the date they are alleging is the latest Coinbase started trading securities). I doubt it - but even if so, that's just not good enough. Crypto sceptics generally agree that the SEC has been asleep at the wheel. What they aren't willing to acknowledge is that ther…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's so much worse than that. "Laws should be exhaustively comprehensive" is a completely unworkable system. You cannot predict every possible combination of context and law, and attempting to do so would be literal combinatorics explosion. People who push that kind of system know this, and want the system to be hamstrung by exactly that situation. They want a system that can only outlaw their new, explicitly harmful…
I just want a system that is predictable , objective and that works quickly . Saying that there are flaws in the current system simply offends the gate keepers of the system.
We both have to work in reality.
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…
Of course the gap between these is closing by the introduction of lootboxes and similar mechanics. I do think these should be regulated as it aligns the incentives to get people addicted to your game, which is a fairly basic variation on preying on the vulnerable. In addition I -- and I assume most people -- do not like getting treated as a money piñata.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> And investigations obviously take time. Maybe the SEC will be able to lay out in court that they have been very busy with their investigation since 2019 (the date they are alleging is the latest Coinbase started trading securities). I doubt it - but even if so, that's just not good enough. Crypto sceptics generally agree that the SEC has been asleep at the wheel. What they aren't willing to acknowledge is that ther…
I’m sorry but your third paragraph doesn’t make any sense. I can’t engage with anything like that. You seem to be arguing against the investigative process and unless you’re an actual investigator, I just don’t believe you’re qualified.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 Crypt…
Like when you're filing a tax return, you decide if something's deductible or not, based on the tax code, and if you get it wrong, then the Government unleashes pain on you. But they're not holding your hand.
It makes sense to me that the people with the most to gain from a novel financial instrument should be the ones who determine if it's legal, and explain why it's legal.
And if you don't have legal certainty about the status of token X... ...don't trade it.
The exchanges took the risk, made some good (fiat) coin doing so, and now they're finding out they were wrong.
And tbh I'm not sure there's an path to registering the many tokens that function as effective Ponzi schemes, because they're illegal.
Don't get me wrong, I think that the SEC was asleep at the wheel for years on this, but I can't see how that justifies being outraged when the regulator eventually pulls thumb. They made a lot of money while the regulators were napping.
And yeah, still don't see this as tyranny tbh.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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