11–20 of 59 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"These rules could have been applied to" Actually, these rules ARE applied to Coinbase at the very least. Coinbase--and YC, and many YC startups--deliberately choose to ignore them.
I've read your lawsuit against coinbase. No comment.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've read your lawsuit against coinbase. No comment.
Sounds like you don't disagree then.
On the other hand, assuming that you have filed a lawsuit against Coinbase, it sounds like you can no longer pass neutral comment on the matter. Something you seem to have conveniently not mentioned.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Lawsky did what makes sense from his perspective: he applied the money transmission framework to Bitcoin. The authors of this post are both biased in favor of Bitcoin, and not particularly careful examiners of the real consumer protection issues at hand.
Indeed he's attempting to apply an existing regulatory framework to new technology, which rarely works well. The point of the article was not to focus on the consumer protection issues, but instead to point out how it could kill startups in the name of consumer protection. We are both in favor of avoiding another Mt. Gox, and the numerous other cases where user funds were lost, which includes escrow of the funds held…
If that eliminates small startups in the space from directly offering services to consumers, so be it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sounds like you don't disagree then.
Sounds like he cannot comment for legal reasons. On the other hand, assuming that you have filed a lawsuit against Coinbase, it sounds like you can no longer pass neutral comment on the matter. Something you seem to have conveniently not mentioned.
In any event, there's no legal reason why he couldn't comment. He's not involved, except to the extent that his own company might also be ignoring the law and thereby breaking it--which I have no idea if it's the case or not. But plenty of startups do.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Indeed he's attempting to apply an existing regulatory framework to new technology, which rarely works well. The point of the article was not to focus on the consumer protection issues, but instead to point out how it could kill startups in the name of consumer protection. We are both in favor of avoiding another Mt. Gox, and the numerous other cases where user funds were lost, which includes escrow of the funds held…
Given the way that some Bitcoin startups have crashed and burned with people's money, I don't think that it's unreasonable to raise the bar significantly in the name of consumer protection. If that eliminates small startups in the space from directly offering services to consumers, so be it.
It makes sense to regulate and, for example, require escrow for companies that are holding user funds in order to avoid the exact situation you point out. It doesn't make sense for a web wallet where the user is storing her own keys client-side.
>2. Require them to hold an undetermined amount of U.S. dollar funds in bonds or trusts. Startups will not be able to predict the bonding or capitalization requirements until after they apply, making it difficult to project expenses or raise money.
>3. Conduct expensive audits and security testing that no small startup could afford.
>4. Hand over any untouched user assets to NY State after five years as “abandoned property.”
If these four things deter you, please do everyone a favor and do not start any company that handles other peoples money.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Lawsky did what makes sense from his perspective: he applied the money transmission framework to Bitcoin. The authors of this post are both biased in favor of Bitcoin, and not particularly careful examiners of the real consumer protection issues at hand.
Indeed he's attempting to apply an existing regulatory framework to new technology, which rarely works well. The point of the article was not to focus on the consumer protection issues, but instead to point out how it could kill startups in the name of consumer protection. We are both in favor of avoiding another Mt. Gox, and the numerous other cases where user funds were lost, which includes escrow of the funds held…
I think this sounds more true than it actually is. "Works" is a fairly ambiguous word, but new technology is released into existing regulatory frameworks every day.
> 1. Submit fingerprints of all founders (and employees) to the FBI and disclose personal financial information of founders and officers to NY State. > 2. Require them to hold an undetermined amount of U.S. dollar funds in bonds or trusts. Startups will not be able to predict the bonding or capitalization requirements until after they apply, making it difficult to project expenses or raise money. > 3. Conduct expensi…
* Coinbase: A startup that holds millions of dollars worth of bitcoin for mostly consumers * The reddit tip bot: a non-profit community tool that explicitly discourages holding more than a dollar or two * Blockchain: A startup that holds no money for anyone, but writes and serves software that helps people hold their own money online.
Do you think all three of these groups should go through this process?
> 1. Submit fingerprints of all founders (and employees) to the FBI and disclose personal financial information of founders and officers to NY State. > 2. Require them to hold an undetermined amount of U.S. dollar funds in bonds or trusts. Startups will not be able to predict the bonding or capitalization requirements until after they apply, making it difficult to project expenses or raise money. > 3. Conduct expensi…
each Licensee must obtain the superintendent’s prior written approval for any plan or proposal to introduce or offer a new product, service, or activity, or to make a material change to an existing product, service, or activity
> 1. Submit fingerprints of all founders (and employees) to the FBI and disclose personal financial information of founders and officers to NY State. > 2. Require them to hold an undetermined amount of U.S. dollar funds in bonds or trusts. Startups will not be able to predict the bonding or capitalization requirements until after they apply, making it difficult to project expenses or raise money. > 3. Conduct expensi…
How about this? each Licensee must obtain the superintendent’s prior written approval for any plan or proposal to introduce or offer a new product, service, or activity, or to make a material change to an existing product, service, or activity