71–80 of 308 posts
I feel like this won't end up going well for the SEC. This whole methodology of telling exchanges "I don't know, you figure it out" when they ask for clarity and then turning around and suing them for not figuring it out is extremely shaky legal ground.
Law enforcement has no obligation to explain the laws to you.
I feel like this won't end up going well for the SEC. This whole methodology of telling exchanges "I don't know, you figure it out" when they ask for clarity and then turning around and suing them for not figuring it out is extremely shaky legal ground.
Law enforcement has no obligation to explain the laws to you.
I feel like this won't end up going well for the SEC. This whole methodology of telling exchanges "I don't know, you figure it out" when they ask for clarity and then turning around and suing them for not figuring it out is extremely shaky legal ground.
And given that we've seen exchange after exchange fail to perform basic tasks like "don't commingle customer funds," I have a hard time feeling any sympathy for cryptocurrency companies here.
I feel like this won't end up going well for the SEC. This whole methodology of telling exchanges "I don't know, you figure it out" when they ask for clarity and then turning around and suing them for not figuring it out is extremely shaky legal ground.
Law enforcement has no obligation to explain the laws to you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, I had started the conversation about BTC not BCH. Personally, I feel that BCH has more of a team associated with it than BTC. That said, none of what we're talking about addresses the fact that, in 2018, Gensler said, quote, "Bitcoin. Ether. Litecoin. Bitcoin Cash. Why did I name those four? They’re not securities." Since then, things have changed, and now Gensler only highlights BTC as not a security. If the i…
Isn't BTC controlled by one single very centralized group, Blockstream? I could be wrong but I thought Adam Back's Blockstream long ago hijacked the GitHub repo and took full control of that project.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This sentence is so weird for me. Why would you want to work for a company if you seemingly don’t care about their product. For money, of course. A company’s mission doesn’t pay for my groceries or rent. A substantial compensation package serves as a strong incentive to perform well. > And conversely, why would anyone ever hire someone for a role if the person looking to get hired doesn’t care about the product? Th…
Please take this as constructive criticism: telling an interviewer you’re not interested in the product and you only care about collecting a paycheck comes across as arrogant and is a huge red flag. Ultimately, people hire people they want to work with. You might be in the top 0.1% rust programmers, and I would still not hire you because of that attitude.
I couldn’t really feel any personal excitement about the product i worked on for my first 4 years out of college. It is kind of difficult to feel personal excitement about a product whose customers are all just enterprises of various sizes, and the product was for managing their internal docs/storage/admin stuff/etc. with tons of legacy stuff on top.
However, I deeply cared about the quality of the work I produced for it, about what customers said and feedback they provided (and I acted on it), and the architecture of the product/health of the codebase.
Of course, you shouldn’t tell the interviewer that you don’t care about the product. That’s just weird and feels borderline antisocial. How can you even claim you don’t care about the product, unless you closely worked with it and know enough about it to feel excited.
I think it is pretty common in general to not be super into something unless you are exposed enough to it. I can definitely say it holds true for me for music, for example. Some of my most favorite current artists were initially not even something i was into even slightly, upon the first few listens.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Law enforcement has no obligation to explain the laws to you.
I hope some branch of the government gives an explanation.
IMO it's not even unclear, crypto companies just want to pretend it is because their pocketbook depends on it, but I'm not a lawyer.
Kraken has been trading crypto coins since 2011. Why did it take the SEC so long to bring this suit?
The SEC seems to bring about 2 or 3 crypto enforcement actions per month.[1] They're still working down the ICO backlog. Mostly they've been going after issuers and out and out theft. After FTX, political support for crypto deregulation dropped to near zero. FTX, remember, was lobbying for a bill that would allow all the things for which Kraken is now in trouble. That is going absolutely nowhere now. Also, the SEC, C…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
the security law regulates transactions, that is sufficiently enough to cover cryptographic tokens and the ways they are settled, and thats not where the SEC loses they lose because they cant articulate when they are securities and when they're not securities their theory does play into a trap you pointed out, in that there are plenty of non crypto products that function the same way - limited supply runs sold by cor…
https://www.nyse.com/publicdocs/nyse/regulation/nyse/sea34.p... You can read the act yourself, a cryptocurrency (depending on the type) is not a security by the definition provided. Nor does the cryptographic token have an issuer. Quite literally, most crypto has none of what’s defined under the SEC scope. That said, sure _some_ of the crypto tokens would could count as securities. But even then it’s not clear the ex…
Funny, that describes virtually every cryptocurrency token I'm aware of.
But for all practical purposes, you shouldn't be looking at the definition in the law itself, you should be looking at the case law behind it, where of course the ruling test is the Howey test... "an investment of money in a common enterprise with a reasonable expectation of profit derived from the efforts of others."
I feel like this won't end up going well for the SEC. This whole methodology of telling exchanges "I don't know, you figure it out" when they ask for clarity and then turning around and suing them for not figuring it out is extremely shaky legal ground.
Matt Levine I think put it best: if Bernie Madoff were to go to the SEC and ask them "I don't know how to run a Ponzi scheme legally, can you please update the guidelines to make it easier", of course the SEC is going to refuse. And the situation with cryptocurrencies seems to be broadly similar: there's actually a pretty clear answer as to what would need to be done to be fully above-the-board and legal, it's just n…
If my startup fails because I hired the wrong people, I take the full blame. Why should it be different if I invested in the wrong company or trusted the wrong company with my money?
As someone who is trustworthy and providing a service, I am harmed by the SEC creating a false veneer or respectability for investors to invest in my biggest competitors. I'd rather investors be forced to do due diligence.