Statement on Potentially Unlawful Online Platforms for Trading Digital Assets • Hacker News Board

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

#131

Post by d0lph » Wed, Mar 07, 2018, 7:32 PM UTC

Edmond wrote: post #70

lagadu wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"money" is a representation of value that is recognised as such by a group of people. If a few people decide that a bunch of stones are now money[0] (in other words, represents value), should they be arrested? Similarly, when a group does the same not to stones but to seashells [1] or salt are they committing securities fraud? Someone decides to do the same for a few hashes on the internet and suddenly they can't? Wh…

The problem with these analogous argument about what money means fails to account for the implicit contract that we all sign as members of a society. If you buy your own island like Sir Richard Branson then by all means do what you please. Legal tender is perhaps the most important corner stone of a modern nation state, if an entrepreneur can invent their own money and subsume the one issued by a government then you…

Firstly, I don't think it's likely a cryptocoin is going to destroy any major currency.

I don't agree having a non government issued currency means you don't have a government, for one there seem to be a few countries that use the Dollar or Euro as the de-facto currency.

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

#132

Post by logfromblammo » Wed, Mar 07, 2018, 7:33 PM UTC

aje403 wrote: post #43

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…

Good point. HODL to the moon, grandma! For the record, the SEC won't ban cryptocurrency. They want technology (in general) to stay here and potentially evolve into something that can be useful and provide jobs and value someday, so you can still free oppressed nations, but you will need to cooperate with the American government if it's being done on our soil.

The technology cannot discern the intentions of the nation attempting to regulate it. Tyrannical oppression and reasonable regulation both use the same punishment stick to beat those who step out of line.

Anything that can free people from tyranny must necessarily also be able to free them from the burden of obeying laws. The reasonable standards of conduct have to actually be built into the system in order for it to have a limit on what amount of external control is allowed.

Systems with smart contracts would be able to specify that a government actor could interfere--even retroactively--with any transactions that explicitly opted in to that jurisdiction. So you could sue someone over their Ethereum scam, and a judge could rule in your favor, and then a clerk forwards the order to the technical magicians for the digital circuit court, so that you get as much of your money back as is technically possible to recover.

If you don't opt in, you are in the land of caveat emptor, and the court tosses your case because it can't help you, even if you deserved it. Or people could opt in to private arbitration. But if someone wants their mathmoney to be outside the reach of government enforcement, it is necessarily also out of the reach of government protection. If you won't follow someone else's rules, you can't expect that your untrusted counterparty will follow them, either.

The first state to create a solid opt-in jurisdiction for network-based civil complaints will clean up, just as Delaware has for corporations.

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

#133

Post by simik » Wed, Mar 07, 2018, 7:34 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #125

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…

Now we need a decentralized SEC, or some sort of crypto/ICO-centric auditors.

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

#134

Post by whb07 » Wed, Mar 07, 2018, 7:35 PM UTC

matthewbauer wrote: post #90

whb07 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes but there are many many markets out there which don't have any sort of regulation. The SEC's main quarrel right now appears to be that they believe investors might come to an exchange and invest believing they are as safe.

Which markets are those? Besides black markets

Well for one any sort of auction/market like ebay, flee market, high end auctioneers, the like. They are trading precious metals/jewelry, other objects in which the buyer hopes to profit at some later point in the future. No one is out there buying XYZ widget in the hopes of burning their savings.

No one is buying an ultra rare watch for $10 million in hopes that one day it will be worth less.

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

#135

Post by smacktoward » Wed, Mar 07, 2018, 7:38 PM UTC

shkkmo wrote: post #123

smacktoward wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It's possible I'm misreading the specific requirements -- I am not a securities lawyer, my HN comments are not legal advice, etc. If you are operating one of these platforms, the issuance of this document is a good reason to have a chat with a qualified attorney to figure out exactly how it affects your business.

But that just underlines my main point, which was that this document is a lot more than just a press release.

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

#136

Post by diab0lic » Wed, Mar 07, 2018, 7:42 PM UTC

TomMarius wrote: post #129

diab0lic wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Do you honestly believe that would-be oppressive regimes with existing internet infrastructure will not turn oppressive because crypto? In the most optimistic scenario this argument deals with b but still suffers from a.

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

#137

Post by aje403 » Wed, Mar 07, 2018, 7:44 PM UTC

simik wrote: post #133

tptacek wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Now we need a decentralized SEC, or some sort of crypto/ICO-centric auditors.

Exactly - Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Perhaps we can tap the Winklevii's expertise to audit the SEC for malfeasance

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

#138

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Mar 07, 2018, 7:45 PM UTC

gwbas1c wrote: post #115

TallGuyShort wrote: post #8

So if some anonymous person invents cryptocurrencies, at what point are you supposed to be considered securities? If the first exchange had gone to SEC to register as a securities exchange, would the SEC not have laughed in their face? The headline itself really captures the ambiguity and uncertainty of all of this: "potentially unlawful".

The reason why many cryptocurrencies are considered securities is because there's a certain group of people promoting them as in investment. They are claiming that their cryptocurrencies will rise in value. If you study the definition of money, and what makes a good currency, there's no kind of money that rises in value merely because you own it. Money is meant to be spent or invested, not hoarded. (Adam Smith's "Wea…

[deleted]

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

#139

Post by loceng » Wed, Mar 07, 2018, 7:45 PM UTC

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…

How can something structured as a Pyramid-Ponzi scheme be considered a legitimate new industry? I've yet to see anyone address - while referencing the Pyramid-Ponzi structures of the most popular crypto-assets - and give reason as to why this is okay (when traditional Ponzi schemes are not legal, and for good reason).

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

#140

Post by ceejayoz » Wed, Mar 07, 2018, 7:48 PM UTC

CryptoPunk wrote: post #83

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…

>>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.

Sure they do. It's tasked with the ongoing operation and existence of the country, which can be threatened by economic instability. For example, Albania had a civil war literally over Ponzi scheme failures. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albanian_Civil_War

> If the common good-hearted people are too stupid to control their own money, then they should be deprived of the right to vote and other semblances of legal persohood. What you're suggesting, which is to restrict the rights of everyone, is a disproportionate and illiberal response, characteristic of Big Brother states rather than free societies.

Slamming "Big Brother states" while advocating for the removal of the right to vote and legal personhood is... special.