Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Grayscale was unreasonably denied its Bitcoin ETF, court rules

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 36 posts

Re: Grayscale was unreasonably denied its Bitcoin ETF, court rules

#11

Post by novok »

mcpackieh wrote: post #8
shrimpx wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

SEC keeps insisting that “the law is clear” and they’re just enforcing the law. That their job isn’t to explain the law to people, or how exactly to behave to not break the law. Their approach is “if we think you’re breaking the law we will take action, and things will get hashed out in the courts.” It makes sense that the SEC probably does not have the resources to explain to anyone engaging in any securities activi…

The SEC's position seems eminently reasonable to me. It's not the government's job to give free legal consultation for how to skirt the law. I could call up my local district attorney and ask him to explain the nuanced minutiae of the law as he understands it so that I can skirt around that in some clever way, but I expect he would refuse to answer my questions and rightfully so. If I want that kind of advice, I have…

I see you have no experience with actually dealing with regulatory law and how stupid and vague it can get

Re: Grayscale was unreasonably denied its Bitcoin ETF, court rules

#12

Post by mcpackieh »

novok wrote: post #11
mcpackieh wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The SEC's position seems eminently reasonable to me. It's not the government's job to give free legal consultation for how to skirt the law. I could call up my local district attorney and ask him to explain the nuanced minutiae of the law as he understands it so that I can skirt around that in some clever way, but I expect he would refuse to answer my questions and rightfully so. If I want that kind of advice, I have…

I see you have no experience with actually dealing with regulatory law and how stupid and vague it can get

I'm well aware of how vague and stupid regulatory laws can get. And I know that the government only provides clarity when they deign to do so, I'm not entitled to it.

I can write a letter to the ATF asking if my shoestring with two loops tied in it counts as a machine gun if I also own a certain rifle, or if I only own certain parts of that rifle, or if I sell it to a guy who owns that rifle; they might respond but maybe not. (As a matter of fact they have made public statements concerning such shoestrings, but only because they chose to.)

Re: Grayscale was unreasonably denied its Bitcoin ETF, court rules

#13

Post by kelthuzad »

daxelrod wrote: post #7
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #2

I'm about as "anti crypto" as they come, and I find the whole need/purpose for a Bitcoin spot ETF to be completely baffling (and I suspect most actual crypto enthusiasts would agree), but this seems like the right decision to me. I specifically agreed with this comment: "The SEC has been getting blasted for its regulation-by-enforcement approach to crypto." I understand the SEC's hostility to crypto, but what I don't…

This is how a fintech Chief Compliance Officer explained it to me: The industry that the SEC regulates is full of clever people who have a financial incentive to push rules as far as possible. The concern is that if they provided a clear line between what is allowed and disallowed, that everyone will go right up to the line and then find creative ways to exploit how it’s defined. The SEC prefers to keep the line fuzz…

If the line is intentionally fuzzy it doesn't make sense for them to lie about how the line is supposedly clear, because lying tends to diminish the trust and credibility of the SEC.

I still don't buy this explanation regardless, because it makes navigating the space impossible.

Re: Grayscale was unreasonably denied its Bitcoin ETF, court rules

#14

Post by noman-land »

daxelrod wrote: post #7
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #2

I'm about as "anti crypto" as they come, and I find the whole need/purpose for a Bitcoin spot ETF to be completely baffling (and I suspect most actual crypto enthusiasts would agree), but this seems like the right decision to me. I specifically agreed with this comment: "The SEC has been getting blasted for its regulation-by-enforcement approach to crypto." I understand the SEC's hostility to crypto, but what I don't…

This is how a fintech Chief Compliance Officer explained it to me: The industry that the SEC regulates is full of clever people who have a financial incentive to push rules as far as possible. The concern is that if they provided a clear line between what is allowed and disallowed, that everyone will go right up to the line and then find creative ways to exploit how it’s defined. The SEC prefers to keep the line fuzz…

This sounds like a ploy to justify selective enforcement against whoever the regulators don't like at any given moment.

Re: Grayscale was unreasonably denied its Bitcoin ETF, court rules

#15

Post by hn_throwaway_99 »

daxelrod wrote: post #7
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #2

I'm about as "anti crypto" as they come, and I find the whole need/purpose for a Bitcoin spot ETF to be completely baffling (and I suspect most actual crypto enthusiasts would agree), but this seems like the right decision to me. I specifically agreed with this comment: "The SEC has been getting blasted for its regulation-by-enforcement approach to crypto." I understand the SEC's hostility to crypto, but what I don't…

This is how a fintech Chief Compliance Officer explained it to me: The industry that the SEC regulates is full of clever people who have a financial incentive to push rules as far as possible. The concern is that if they provided a clear line between what is allowed and disallowed, that everyone will go right up to the line and then find creative ways to exploit how it’s defined. The SEC prefers to keep the line fuzz…

Thanks, this makes sense to me (even if I may disagree with some of the "implementation"), so I really appreciate you sharing your knowledge.

Re: Grayscale was unreasonably denied its Bitcoin ETF, court rules

#16

Post by solumunus »

daxelrod wrote: post #7
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #2

I'm about as "anti crypto" as they come, and I find the whole need/purpose for a Bitcoin spot ETF to be completely baffling (and I suspect most actual crypto enthusiasts would agree), but this seems like the right decision to me. I specifically agreed with this comment: "The SEC has been getting blasted for its regulation-by-enforcement approach to crypto." I understand the SEC's hostility to crypto, but what I don't…

This is how a fintech Chief Compliance Officer explained it to me: The industry that the SEC regulates is full of clever people who have a financial incentive to push rules as far as possible. The concern is that if they provided a clear line between what is allowed and disallowed, that everyone will go right up to the line and then find creative ways to exploit how it’s defined. The SEC prefers to keep the line fuzz…

> The SEC prefers to keep the line fuzzy so that actors keep their behavior well on the “allowed” side.

In crypto it appears the exact opposite is happening.

Re: Grayscale was unreasonably denied its Bitcoin ETF, court rules

#17

Post by [deleted] »

daxelrod wrote: post #7
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #2

I'm about as "anti crypto" as they come, and I find the whole need/purpose for a Bitcoin spot ETF to be completely baffling (and I suspect most actual crypto enthusiasts would agree), but this seems like the right decision to me. I specifically agreed with this comment: "The SEC has been getting blasted for its regulation-by-enforcement approach to crypto." I understand the SEC's hostility to crypto, but what I don't…

This is how a fintech Chief Compliance Officer explained it to me: The industry that the SEC regulates is full of clever people who have a financial incentive to push rules as far as possible. The concern is that if they provided a clear line between what is allowed and disallowed, that everyone will go right up to the line and then find creative ways to exploit how it’s defined. The SEC prefers to keep the line fuzz…

[deleted]

Re: Grayscale was unreasonably denied its Bitcoin ETF, court rules

#18

Post by shrimpx »

mcpackieh wrote: post #12
novok wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see you have no experience with actually dealing with regulatory law and how stupid and vague it can get

I'm well aware of how vague and stupid regulatory laws can get. And I know that the government only provides clarity when they deign to do so, I'm not entitled to it. I can write a letter to the ATF asking if my shoestring with two loops tied in it counts as a machine gun if I also own a certain rifle, or if I only own certain parts of that rifle, or if I sell it to a guy who owns that rifle; they might respond but m…

In the end it comes down to poorly written laws. The laws overreach broadly with vague language, and then citizens and corporations are afraid to act due to fear of lawsuits.

The idea of "guidance" is "hey, would you fine or sue me if I act like this, in this gray area, that's genuinely hard for me and my lawyers to determine if it's within the law?"

The court decisions to refute the ATF on bump stocks and SEC on crypto ETFs show the laws were written fuzzily there. SEC's insistence that the law speaks for itself looks kind of dishonest, or ignorant.

Re: Grayscale was unreasonably denied its Bitcoin ETF, court rules

#19

Post by ascendantlogic »

daxelrod wrote: post #7
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #2

I'm about as "anti crypto" as they come, and I find the whole need/purpose for a Bitcoin spot ETF to be completely baffling (and I suspect most actual crypto enthusiasts would agree), but this seems like the right decision to me. I specifically agreed with this comment: "The SEC has been getting blasted for its regulation-by-enforcement approach to crypto." I understand the SEC's hostility to crypto, but what I don't…

This is how a fintech Chief Compliance Officer explained it to me: The industry that the SEC regulates is full of clever people who have a financial incentive to push rules as far as possible. The concern is that if they provided a clear line between what is allowed and disallowed, that everyone will go right up to the line and then find creative ways to exploit how it’s defined. The SEC prefers to keep the line fuzz…

"The people we're regulating are really clever so we can't tell you what the rules are" Is a terrible way to handle things.

Re: Grayscale was unreasonably denied its Bitcoin ETF, court rules

#20

Post by [deleted] »

ascendantlogic wrote: post #19
daxelrod wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is how a fintech Chief Compliance Officer explained it to me: The industry that the SEC regulates is full of clever people who have a financial incentive to push rules as far as possible. The concern is that if they provided a clear line between what is allowed and disallowed, that everyone will go right up to the line and then find creative ways to exploit how it’s defined. The SEC prefers to keep the line fuzz…

"The people we're regulating are really clever so we can't tell you what the rules are" Is a terrible way to handle things.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN