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

Statement on Potentially Unlawful Online Platforms for Trading Digital Assets

sec.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 282 posts

Re: Statement on Potentially Unlawful Online Platforms for Trading Digital Assets

#121

Post by AlexCoventry »

lurchpop wrote: post #112
whb07 wrote: post #20

From my untrained perspective it seems like they are warning against "the appearance of a regulated market". Therefore, all these markets should do is have a big banner at the top stating: "We are not regulated by the SEC and any activity here is not protected by any rules and regulations which might apply to a SEC registered company. Please be careful" Or am i crazy?

I think that protective tone they're taking is PR. These potential enforcement actions are for your safety because we care about protecting investors. Not that it's a power grab in the crytpo market.

FWIW, that is the explicit mandate of the SEC. It could be a power grab, but protecting unsophisticated investors is exactly what the SEC is supposed to do.

Re: Statement on Potentially Unlawful Online Platforms for Trading Digital Assets

#122

Post by CryptoPunk »

dragonwriter wrote: post #119
CryptoPunk wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Society shouldn't ban everything that hasn't proven to be socially beneficial.

Exchanges of the types prohibited by existing securities laws are not prohibited merely because they haven't proven to be socially beneficial, but because they have proven to be massively harmful. The idea that cryptocurrency as a subject of trading changes that in any way is a claim which requires some substantial basis before it would warrant an exception to the general rules written into law.

There is absolutely no proof that it's "massively harmful". It's impossible to quantify all of the positive and negative effects of any type of exchange, let alone to "prove" the effects are net harmful.

>>the general rules written into law.

I'm arguing against the principle that we should ban anything not proven to be socially beneficial.

Re: Statement on Potentially Unlawful Online Platforms for Trading Digital Assets

#123

Post by shkkmo »

smacktoward wrote: post #33
not_that_noob wrote: post #9

This is a press release - nothing more. A CYA from the SEC in case something blows up tomorrow. It's not a cease and desist letter to the exchange operators - so on balance, this is good news for them. I think the SEC is not confident that the courts will support their position, and so the next best option is.... a press release.

That's not how any of this works. What you're looking at is not a press release, it is what's called "administrative guidance" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrative_guidance ) -- a regulatory agency laying out its interpretation of how existing laws and regulations apply to a given situation. Regulators do this to remove ambiguity, so regulated parties know what the agency expects them to do in order to stay…

> In this specific case, the SEC is advising crypto-based operations calling themselves "exchanges" that this is a word that has a special legal meaning,

Really? I didn't get that reading at all. The discussion of the use of the word "exchange" is under the guidance for investors, not the guidance for trading platforms.

The guidance for trading platforms specifically talks about which assets are being traded and how determining what type of registration is required (national security exchange, ATS, broker-dealer, transfer agent, etc...)

"A number of these platforms provide a mechanism for trading assets that meet the definition of a "security" under the federal securities laws. If a platform offers trading of digital assets that are securities and operates as an "exchange," as defined by the federal securities laws, then the platform must register with the SEC as a national securities exchange or be exempt from registration. "

Re: Statement on Potentially Unlawful Online Platforms for Trading Digital Assets

#124

Post by scblock »

crypt1d wrote: post #114
scblock wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is this the same oppressive regime that surveils, firewalls and filters the internet and other forms of communication that this idea depends on?

I see you are trying to be clever, but that comment doesn't really bring anything to the table. Sure, you can try to filter/block crypto transactions but that will be A LOT harder than blocking dissident blogs. One of the biggest selling points of many decentralized systems is to be censorship resistant.

I am not even remotely trying to be clever.

Re: Statement on Potentially Unlawful Online Platforms for Trading Digital Assets

#125

Post by tptacek »

cal5k wrote: post #77

I'm flabbergasted by how much disinformation is infecting this threat. If you look at the list of legal actions the SEC has pursued at the bottom of the article, they are all flagrant violations of securities law and clearly unethical practices. For example, in "SEC v. Jon E. Montroll and Bitfunder", the individual in question was accepting "investments" in his exchange that were clearly securities (probably fitting…

This comment is written as if it says something important, but really doesn't say anything at all.

It would be monumentally newsworthy if there was clear guidance that Bitcoin and Ethereum "weren't securities" (more generally: that businesses that simply deal in Bitcoin were generally outside the purview of securities regulation). But we do not in fact know that right now.

No expert believes that you can look at the list of current enforcement actions and reliably predict the SEC's next actions. They could keep taking out scammers for the next several years, getting practice by picking out the low-hanging fruit. Or, they could at literally any moment come down like a ton of bricks on the industry's most mainstream participants. We simply don't know.

What we do know is that "coin-mediated" finance is enabling thousands of people to launch investment-driven businesses who would previously not have been able to do that before, not because of a lack of technical ability but because the laws made it prohibitively expensive. Those laws have not been repealed. A lot of reasonable people are waiting for the other shoe to drop.

Re: Statement on Potentially Unlawful Online Platforms for Trading Digital Assets

#126

Post by tptacek »

cal5k wrote: post #98
toomim wrote: post #92

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…

Again: what you can say with authority is that they decided not to pursue action at that time. You have no idea what their future plans are.

Re: Statement on Potentially Unlawful Online Platforms for Trading Digital Assets

#127

Post by DINKDINK »

bpicolo wrote: post #91
awt wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eth used an ICO.

Still not a security as it's not intended as stake in a business

When Ethereum ICO'ed it definitely met the Howey test for securities criteria. The SEC even stated that.

Re: Statement on Potentially Unlawful Online Platforms for Trading Digital Assets

#128

Post by benchaney »

lmkg wrote: post #64
trophycase wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Binance wasn't hacked. A bunch of idiots gave their API keys to third party bots. The owner of the bots then hijacked their accounts for profit

That's not a very sophisticated hack, but it's technically a type of hacking. In the same way that if you leave your keys unlocked in your running car overnight and someone gets in an drives away with it, that's still theft.

You're right that it is technically a type of hack, but it isn't Binance that was hacked. It was some Binance users.

Re: Statement on Potentially Unlawful Online Platforms for Trading Digital Assets

#129

Post by TomMarius »

diab0lic wrote: post #50
ballenf wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> who have provided less than zero benefit or service to our society Was following your argument up to that point. Making such a value judgment requires, in my opinion, a lot more data and deep analysis. Cryptocurrencies have the potential of loosening the grasp of oppressive regimes over their people. And it takes those other investors for the process to function. But, the reality and therefore data is needed to jud…

I see the argument that cryptos reduce the grasp of oppressive regimes on here pretty frequently but the truth is that a) the null hypothesis (no effect) has yet to be rejected with any data and b) oppressive regimes are very good at eliminating or severely restricting internet access when it suits them. A slight tangent -- you can't just take two options and say we don't have any data so we can't judge. We have a pr…

I think a better way to say it is that it helps to prevent turns of current regimes (that already have Internet infrastructure built and used) into oppressive regimes.

Re: Statement on Potentially Unlawful Online Platforms for Trading Digital Assets

#130

Post by aje403 »

Snackchez wrote: post #38
aje403 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course they would have laughed in their face. Do you see Nasdaq trying to list Dogecoin? There is no ambiguity or uncertainty here - there is a big problem and 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. This site likes to complain about wealthy inequality - common people like your…

What's your stance on forex markets then?

Cryptocurrency markets have absolutely nothing to do with forex markets and the suggestion that they share commonalities or should be compared together is both deceptive, ignorant, and perpetuates a volume of misinformation
Post reply on HN