Live data from Hacker News

Statement on Potentially Unlawful Online Platforms for Trading Digital Assets

sec.gov

141–150 of 282 posts

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

#141
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…

I think the concept of accredited investor needs to go away though. Why should only the super rich be able to invest in risky ventures? Why do I see so many on the left supporting these regulations that only favour the super rich? I'm not just talking about crypto-currencies but any venture really, since the internet at least, anyone with an internet connection should be free to invest as they want. I'm personally not into ICOs or gambling in general but if that's your thing you should be able to do so.

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

#142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yea and the IRS will be quite curious about your transaction history when you do.

The IRS and SEC have remarkably different goals. They likely interact very little with one another with regards to enforcement.

Who said they have to interact?

The SEC will be interested in the exchange and its staff. The IRS will be interested in individual users' bank transfers.

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

#143
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…

SEC is pursuing investigation of Tezos. Hardly flagrant as you term it. In fact, by the book token.

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

#144
post #56
post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

couldn't have said it better. The very idea that a random citizen in a modern country can invent their own notion of money is beyond problematic so it is confounding that this whole thing has been allowed to mushroom into what it is today. Proponents like to drag skeptics into crypto debates but that is far off the mark when it comes to the real implications of the current situation. Some questions to ponder: When wi…

"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…

I know a car dealership that had a customer attempt to purchase a vehicle with a cheque drawn on a currency called RA, or something similar. The customer said that they were paying the sum of $30,000 in comparable spiritual RA. Would you have taken the cheque?

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

#145
post #133

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.

The problem is that you need a decentralized SEC, that somehow obviates the existing SEC, and all other similar government-empowered agencies all around the world. Good luck with that. You've got a long road to hoe just to convince people that's a good idea; it certainly isn't obvious to me. Without that power inevitably just collapses back to the central authority for all kinds of reasons. (Many of which are the reason why the stable solution in the existing economy is indeed the existence of a distinct SEC.)

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

#146
post #40
post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

May be more likely due to the Binance "hack." http://markets.businessinsider.com/currencies/news/bitcoin-p... Edited for clarity.

We don't know Binance was hacked. Relatively few people use API keys to trade and every reported account had API keys on it. It's likely some malware that looks for API keys in config / python files laying around.

Perhaps. A SQL injection hole could potentially expose API keys, or there could be a vulnerability that lets an attacker add an API key.

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

#147
post #2

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?

> Fully de-centralized exchanges are coming too, how are they ever going to regulate that?

That's an interesting thought that I hadn't considered. I mean, when we think of trading stocks, we tend to exclusively think of brokerages and the like and forget that at one point in history, it wasn't uncommon to actually hold a stock certificate in a safe somewhere. It's before my time, but I believe you could turn around and sell that certificate to someone else without involving anyone. Were it a straight cash transaction, it would be trivial to perform without anyone but the two parties involved being aware of the transaction.

In the case of a decentralized trading platform, one could trade between crypto-currencies without the ability of the government to regulate it, but once you wish to turn it into hard currency, that's where regulation can step in. What would be more interesting, though, is if the "original promise" of bitcoin -- that it could be used without turning it into cash (buy a coffee with Bitcoin!) -- became a reality. Unfortunately, it's looking like that's headed more and more in the other direction. I have a feeling, though, if regulation steps in hard, there'll be greater motivation to solving the problems that have made this difficult in the past[0]. Combined with some of cryptocurrencies aimed at increasing/providing anonymity to transactions, you start to head more toward a very difficult to regulate set of circumstances that might resemble the difficulties the copyright industries have had attacking file sharing technologies[1].

[0] And while there has been plenty of motivation and I'm aware of some folks actively solving this problem, the motivation among all stakeholders has to be there, as well.

[1] Though the government has far more motivation to solve this problem than it did as it relates to copyright infringement -- I'll admit it's not a great analogy once you start digging into the details.

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

#148
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…

I'm personally very keen on "coin-mediated" finance. However, that doesn't mean I'm stupid enough to believe I can flout securities law without consequences. A public offering is still a public offering when you couch it behind a token, no matter how cleverly constructed your whitepaper.

If the SEC was going to come down like a ton of bricks they would have done so already. I could be wrong, but their actions seem to demonstrate that they're taking a very measured, careful approach to coming up with a regulatory framework.

My comment was a reaction to other comments, not the statement from the SEC - which actually doesn't say much either.

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

#149

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 Bitcoin went to $100 today, at the very least we'd see a massive hit to unemployment and disability rolls.

I don’t think the facts support this. As big as bitcoin’s market cap is globally, it doesn’t actually appear to be causing a lot of employment.

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

#150
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…

> It would be monumentally newsworthy if there was clear guidance that Bitcoin and Ethereum "weren't securities"

The SEC refers people to the Howey Test in all of their statements, which is fairly clear guidance that they don't consider Bitcoin to be a security. With something like Ethereum they're not going to say, since something can alternate between being a security and not being a security, so any sort of specific guidance wouldn't be especially meaningful.

Post reply on HN