101–110 of 282 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yup. It's really quite simple - focus on the USD on-ramps and off-ramps.
It's effectively the only way to do it but the way around it is fairly simple: use a bank account on another country, one that is OK with crypto along with non-US based exchanges.
Willful money laundering isn't a "simple" risk-reward decision.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And how would their people acquire this “wealth” in the first place?
Are you implying that because someone lives in an oppressive country that they have no money to transact? I really dont understand your question. Oppressive regimes tend to control money flow in/out of the country. So if you, for example, have an aunt somewhere outside that wants to send you money -> you just might not be able to receive it, or would need to give some official a slice of the pie. Bitcoin obviously ca…
Acquiring this "wealth" of crypto would be impossible in an oppressive regime in the first place.
It looks like they are going after the exchanges, see this choice quote: > A platform that trades securities and operates as an "exchange," as defined by the federal securities laws, must register as a national securities exchange or operate under an exemption from registration, such as the exemption provided for ATSs under SEC Regulation ATS. And it says that online wallets may qualify if they facilitate trading: >…
This will not scale, being that many of the modern cryptocurrencies make it really easy to implement token exchange mechanisms. Fully de-centralized exchanges are coming too, how are they ever going to regulate that?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The burden of proof is on the new product, not the current society. I don't think he needs "data and deep analysis", that work needs to be done by the people trying to convince you cryptocurrencies are the future. When the status quo is disrupted, it's perfectly reasonable to assume that it's a passing fad or won't work out. A product or asset, especially a radical step like cryptocurrencies, succeeding and being val…
Society shouldn't ban everything that hasn't proven to be socially beneficial.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>>they're trying to reign it in with gloved hands before it becomes one and it turns into a big economic mess that the government will have to foot the bill to eventually clean up. The government has no obligation to clean up anything. Claiming otherwise is just an excuse to prohibit people from investing into high-risk assets. >>common people like your grandparents and uninformed but good hearted relatives are provi…
> The government has no obligation to clean up anything And yet, when millions of individual investors lose more than they can afford that's often what must happen to preserve the peace. If Bitcoin went to $100 today, at the very least we'd see a massive hit to unemployment and disability rolls.
If there's no bailout at the taxpayer's expense, what do you suppose will happen? Riots? Revolutions?
Nothing will happen except millions of people learning a much needed lesson.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Cryptocurrencies have the potential of loosening the grasp of oppressive regimes over their people. How exactly would that work?!
by allowing u to transact wealth without the control and oversight of the oppressive regime.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Eth used an ICO.
Still not a security as it's not intended as stake in a business
What matters is if the expectation of profit comes from the efforts of a promoter or third party, not whether the investment is a share of a business.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That list at the bottom is not exhaustive! It's just a few enforcement actions that the SEC wants you to read. They also do worse things. For instance, the SEC threatened to prosecute the DAO [1], which was certainly not a "clear unethical practice", or "flagrant violation" of securities law -- just a bunch of people voluntarily putting their money into a pool to vote on what to do with it. They could even withdraw t…
"The Commission has determined not to pursue an enforcement action in this matter based on the conduct and activities known to the Commission at this time" I mean... it sounds to me like they did their due diligence. The PDF contains an in-depth look at how existing securities law intersects with what this group was doing. That's exactly what the SEC is supposed to do. DAOs are new and unfamiliar. They looked at what…
The DAO was hacked in June of 2016, and the SEC didn't release that article until July of 2017.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_DAO_(organization)
When the SEC says:
> The Commission has determined not to pursue an enforcement action in this matter based on the conduct and activities known to the Commission at this time
What they mean is:
> We chose not to beat a dead horse, because it's already dead.