141–150 of 489 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In what sense is the link submitted incorrect?
There was a second thread, since merged, where the link was moved so 404’d
Earlier quoted context omitted.
95% of people don’t have a bank account in the US.
and 77.34% of statistics are made up on the spot. https://www.federalreserve.gov/publications/2019-economic-we... 6%
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oh that's easy- this was the compliance officer, and by showing that he raised concerns over this he may be able to claim that he did his job as best he could under the circumstances. I'd need to see the rest of the context, but this could very well be a "cover your ass" message. Imagine if you're a security officer at a company and were just overridden on a decisions- you'd definitely want to shoot off an email desc…
I am wondering if raising objections internally will be sufficient in this case. As a leading executive at Binance shouldn't he be expected to report any malicious activity to the authorities?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> who is buying crypto and not expecting to make a profit from it? Me. I put my savings in Bitcoin because I dislike the tradfi system. All I want is to be in control of my savings and to be able to freely transact with anyone anywhere in the world. I am still affected by the exchange rates to USD and EUR. But the hope is that in the future I will be able to use BTC directly more often and not even have to touch USD…
> Perhaps one day even my country will get with the times and allow me to pay my taxes in BTC directly instead of having to exchange it to government funnymoney first. Something tells me your government cares more about their funnymoney than yours. I can't imagine a government wanting to take on the volatility of bitcoin for a tax payment. What possible compelling argument is there for them to do that?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
> other rights to other people’s money or redistribution of consequences you want me to add to the list Glad you mention redistribution of consequences, given we're burning public prosecution dollars and court time in the United States to deal with FTX, who were downed by the same sort of embezzling Zhao and Binance seem to be up to.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't that one of the benefits of a lawsuit? The law is tested and needs to hold up under scrutiny.
Definitely not when the party who is suing you is the one that defines the rules. Thinking about the scenario of this lawsuit makes me really angry. It's some sort of power demonstration backed by a political strategy.
> In one instance, the Binance chief compliance officer messaged a colleague that, “[w]e are operating as a fking unlicensed securities exchange in the USA bro.” Source: https://twitter.com/JohnReedStark/status/1665748594421297152 This is a legendary quote from the filing.
I think someone on the inside took screenshots and went to the feds (or started cooperating under legal pressure). There's even a leading candidate [0].
What's funny about this is it's a fine metaphor for what ails crypto as a whole. The technology is cryptographically secure, but not at all robust to much simpler betrayals, hacks, etc. If you trust overmuch in the tech and don't focus on less technically interesting but more fundamental threats, you're apt to get rekt.
[0]https://decrypt.co/124999/ex-binance-us-ceo-catherine-coley-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The definition of "security" is pretty objective (Howey test), but the answer it produces tends not to be liked by people in the crypto space, so they argue hard about why it's not a definition of security. What quotes like these do is make it trivial to prove the mens rea (intent) requirements, and put a lie to claims that they didn't know it was a security or that their interpretation as not-a-security was reasonab…
Putting this here in case it's useful. Please correct if it's wrong. What is the Howey test for whether something is a security? """ The Howey Test asks whether a transaction constitutes an "investment contract," which is a type of security. If it is an investment contract, it must satisfy four criteria: It is an investment of money. The investment is in a common enterprise. There is an expectation of profits from th…
ChatGPT is a text generator. It is “useful” for writing sentences in a context where correctness and understanding are less important than syntactical uniformity and word count.
Edit: Ok, I guess people want ChatGPT responses.
Risks when using ChatGPT instead of research while discussing financial securities:
Accuracy: While AI models strive for accuracy, there can still be errors or misunderstandings. They might oversimplify complex concepts, miss nuances, or even provide incorrect information. It's always a good idea to verify information from multiple reliable sources.
Bias: AI models are trained on existing data, which might contain inherent biases. Thus, the output of AI might also reflect these biases, although it is unintentional. Lack of deep understanding: While AI models like ChatGPT can process and generate language based on patterns they learned during training, they do not possess actual understanding or intuition. They are unable to think critically or provide expert judgment.
Outdated Information: As of its last training cut-off (September 2021 for ChatGPT), the model might not have the most current information or developments in the field of financial securities. Regulation and legality: There are regulatory considerations in financial markets, and AI models may not be fully updated or able to provide guidance in line with current laws and regulations.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> other rights to other people’s money or redistribution of consequences you want me to add to the list Glad you mention redistribution of consequences, given we're burning public prosecution dollars and court time in the United States to deal with FTX, who were downed by the same sort of embezzling Zhao and Binance seem to be up to.
[flagged]
Plenty of crypto operates outside U.S. jurisdiction. FTX didn't. Binance isn't.
> this discussion is about whether you have the right to make it illegal for me to do the same
If you use U.S. dollars or solicit American investors damn right I do. For the same reason you have a say over whether I can open a toxic industrial plant in the plot adjacent to your home's.