231–240 of 308 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Privately managed, voluntary regulation isn't free-market?
No, because this is always (ultimately) by consent of the societies it is happening in and within those power structures. It always sits on top of a lot of stuff, never in a vacuum.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My favorite part is this: > Meanwhile, groups of lawmakers from both sides of the aisle have questioned what they call SEC’s “regulation via enforcement” approach. They have asked why the agency’s actions against crypto firms seem less focused on “compliance and customer protection,” but were instead “calculated for maximum publicity and political impact.” Others have observed that the SEC’s strategy “does not protec…
> “calculated for maximum publicity and political impact.” I'm not a fan of crypto currency, but a big part of my dislike for it is how difficult it is to actually use it. I don't mean technically though. I mean legally. In Canada, all crypto transactions are considered taxable events. Did you sell a couch on Facebook Marketplace using Bitcoin? Time to calculate your capital gain or loss from a vaguely worded set of…
What a surprise that the government isn't about to make it convenient to evade its authority.
> Once that's done crypto currency doesn't have much value to anyone.
It already doesn't. The lofty early promises have long fallen flat and all that is left is a game of hot potato. It's not utility, it's just a lottery, which economically speaking is negative utility.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, because this is always (ultimately) by consent of the societies it is happening in and within those power structures. It always sits on top of a lot of stuff, never in a vacuum.
According to your rationalizations, does private property exist? Do individuals own themselves?
With maybe an exemption if you manage to be totally isolated (but then at least private property is a weird concept anyway).
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
At least in the case of Bernie Madoff, the SEC can say "no, it is illegal to run a ponzi scheme and in this case it should say what law the exchange broke to make it valid
They offered an unregistered security for sale. That is against the law.
Kraken has been trading crypto coins since 2011. Why did it take the SEC so long to bring this suit?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They offered an unregistered security for sale. That is against the law.
They are only securities in the eyes of SEC. There is no legally binding court decision that cryptocurrencies would be securities, and, for example, are not commodities.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
> 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 not what the cryptocurrency people want, so they want the SEC to make it easier for them. Fighting the SEC isn't easy or cheap either, raising questions about the reluctance to pursue the pathway to compliance. If there truly exists a legal route for a company to become "above-the-board and legal…
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.
IANAL, but I would think it'd be the job of the business in question to hire lawyers, who would then offer their opinion on the matter.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
According to your rationalizations, does private property exist? Do individuals own themselves?
Both only within in limits, as most jurisdictions and also history shows (just take the draft, for example). With maybe an exemption if you manage to be totally isolated (but then at least private property is a weird concept anyway).
Even so, I doubt we'll be able to see eye to eye given your starting premises about collectivism. I'd venture that the individual does own himself and that the liberal tradition starts from this point.
A consequentialist might venture that some of the darkest events in history flow from the collectivist ideologies. The opposing deontological view would be that the individual does own himself and private property does exist. We would struggle to define fraud and theft without these premises. Indeed, objecting to fraud and theft becomes problematic when you are simultaneously arguing that private property, individuals and free exchange are impossible.