141–150 of 327 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why can't they both be right? Futures aren't securities except in certain cases, and if bitcoin is a currency then bitcoin futures wouldn't be under SEC jurisdiction.
“Commodity” is shorthand for “non-security commodity” in CFTC-speak.
If you are Coinbase, your primary product is a sort of regulatory arbitrage -- there is legal risk associated with it, and so one of your primary expenses would be an army of lawyers to decide where on the risk-reward curve you would want to be. The army of lawyers is too expensive? Buddy, no one is forcing you to be in this business. Just because you made profits in the earlier years with little to no regulation doe…
Coinbase has repeatedly asked for clear regulation. If anything your issue should be with the regulators for not regulating, not Coinbase for trying to operate a business responsibly as possible without clear regulation.
> Deal with it like a grown businessperson rather than whining.
Ah yes, they should just "deal with it" by bribing politicians and hiring an "army of lawyers". Why would anyone whine about that.
Some here have said it’s the SEC who should have a more collaborative spirit. But all of their incentives, job descriptions, and reason to exist are to _enforce laws_ not be chummy with startup executives. The “mean” approach to securities enforcement is what we as a society need…there are far too many scams and people who run them, and those scams seem especially concentrated within the crypto world. After the blitz…
Some here have said it’s the SEC who should have a more collaborative spirit. But all of their incentives, job descriptions, and reason to exist are to _enforce laws_ not be chummy with startup executives. The “mean” approach to securities enforcement is what we as a society need…there are far too many scams and people who run them, and those scams seem especially concentrated within the crypto world. After the blitz…
ASEA Brown Boveri ABB Settles SEC Charges That It Engaged in Bribery Scheme in South Africa
In case you're wondering if the system is rigged, she obviously knew this was coming... https://www.coindesk.com/business/2023/02/23/cathie-woods-ar... and then yesterday... so convenient... https://www.businessinsider.in/stock-market/news/cathie-wood... Down 8.16% today... https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/COIN/
Hmm her fund has gotten totally clobbered since early 2021. If she were truly privy to insider info, why would her fund do so bad? Or put it another way, after being wrong so often, maybe she is bound to get something right by chance (stopped clock theorem)?
Also, just because she might have had insider info in this instance, doesn't mean she always has it. The fact Coinbase was able to release a blog post so soon after the announcement would suggest there was some knowledge that this was coming.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> That will need to be determined in the courts or congress, not by a regulatory bully. The SEC was set up by congress, the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and several others [1]. The Howey test was made by the courts and at least finalized by the supreme court [2]. [1] https://www.sec.gov/about/about-securities-laws [2] https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/328/293.html
I dont see how posting trivia about the SEC's origin take away from it now being moat protecting, outdated entity. It needs to get back to what it was designed for - 20th century regulation, they are clearly showing their uselessness in the 21st.
You argued that "courts or congress" should determine whether Ethereum meets the bar for being a security. My links point out that the the courts and congress has already put a process in place, as you seem to be requesting in your your comment:
> That will need to be determined in the courts or congress...
It sounds like you have additional complaints/issues about the SEC outside of those you put in your comment. My reply was not to address SEC as a whole, only that the "courts or congress" are the wellspring for the procedures and processes currently in place like you seemed to request.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The issue is not that Coinbase is "taking money" and loaning the money out; it is that Coinbase is taking things that the SEC has decided are securities and loaning those out. Notably, the one crypto that the SEC guidance has said is not a security, i.e., Bitcoin, is missing from the list of coins available for Coinbase Earn.
Coinbase Earn is a staking service for people who don't know how or don't want to interact with the blockchain of the particular coin they're staking. Coinbase stakes the coins for them and takes a cut of the staking rewards. They're not lending assets. Bitcoin isn't included because Bitcoin uses proof of work, not proof of stake
Customer lends coins to CB, which then stakes those coins for them in crypto where staking is a thing. It does not matter if they don't "technically" lend the coins, what matters is that they what they have done has the legal effect of lending the coins to CB.
In this case, CB is in a worse position than I originally stated, since essentially all staked crypto is regarded as a security by the SEC. In which case, it's irrelevant that the SEC didn't say which particular crypto is a security; by its guidance all of the coins in CB Earn are.
In some states I can use my money to hire hookers, or buy drugs.
But if I want to buy crypto, all of a sudden that is a problem and the government needs to come in and "protect" me from it. Why is that, I wonder?
If you are Coinbase, your primary product is a sort of regulatory arbitrage -- there is legal risk associated with it, and so one of your primary expenses would be an army of lawyers to decide where on the risk-reward curve you would want to be. The army of lawyers is too expensive? Buddy, no one is forcing you to be in this business. Just because you made profits in the earlier years with little to no regulation doe…
> Just because you made profits in the earlier years with little to no regulation doesn't mean that government is bound to let you keep making that profit forever. Coinbase has repeatedly asked for clear regulation. If anything your issue should be with the regulators for not regulating, not Coinbase for trying to operate a business responsibly as possible without clear regulation. > Deal with it like a grown busines…
I very explicitly _do not want_ lawmakers to move at the speed of start-ups. Start-ups are there to move fast and break things. Laws are more rigid, and thus NEEDS to take it slow to get a full picture of the risk/reward before legislating.
Coinbase, as a start-up, was a pioneer in the shaky legal ground that is cryptocurrencies. They ran the risk of running afoul of a few laws, but made heavy profits in their earlier years (including a huge public market listing) because they took that risk. Now that the risk has materialized, they are crying because they do not want to take ownership of the risks of their operation. Rather, they would like to socialize the losses that they will take by having to finally abide by the regulation. How is that sensible at all?
The fat cats behind these "innovators" are increasingly forgetting the fact that every investment ever sits somewhere in the risk/reward curve. They would rather remake the wheel into "government bad/reward" curve, where any risk and losses is covered or subsidized by the government and all the profits flows into private coffers. I would rather they work for their keep, for once in our collective lifetimes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isnt it obvious? A compliant token is a security. Trying to play games to make them not securities is where crypto's lawyers are going wrong Crypto is looking for a hack that can make their stuff not securities, and the SEC isn't playing along
If you take the SECs view on how securities work, everything from a house to a baseball card to a GPU is a security.
“For purposes of the Securities Act, an investment contract (undefined by the Act) means a contract, transaction, or scheme whereby a person invests his money in a common enterprise and is led to expect profits solely from the efforts of the promoter or a third party, it being immaterial whether the shares in the enterprise are evidenced by formal certificates or by nominal interests in the physical assets employed in the enterprise.”
There are three components:
1. expectation of profits 2. a common enterprise 3. depends “solely” for its success on the efforts of others.