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

161–170 of 282 posts

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

#161

Post by michaelmrose »

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…

This sounds like trumps if you don't have a border you don't have a country.

Having alternative currencies doesn't obviate all the benefits of organized representation.

It does not even replace the nation currency unless you think that the national currency is so defective that citizens will collectively choose coins.

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

#162

Post by mhluongo »

CryptoPunk wrote: post #86
Edmond wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>>if an entrepreneur can invent their own money and subsume the one issued by a government then you don't have a government. I for one prefer having a government. Nonsense. We've had non-political money before. During the free banking era we had thousands of bank-issued currencies that competed in an open market, and the state was alive and well. The state exists as long as it has a monopoly on force within its juris…

Thank you! Only those with a short memory equate money exclusively with government.

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

#164

Post by cal5k »

maaaats wrote: post #160
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…

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

I believe this is simply an unclear subject - "it" refers to the article, not my comment.

I will admit I initially took offence, though, because I rather like tptacek.

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

#165

Post by aml183 »

DINKDINK wrote: post #127
bpicolo wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Where did it say that?

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

#166

Post by pdpi »

tptacek wrote: post #126
cal5k wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

Every day that goes by is a day when they could’ve taken action but didn’t. The stuff they publish on the topic all seems reasonably well thought out, and is always consistent with a “we just want you to follow the rules in place even if you’re using novel tech to do things” mentality.

Sure, they can pivot into rabid dog mode at any moment, but they’re allowing things to proceed while being aware that it’s gaining more mainstream appeal.

The sort of posture you’re advocating is the same sort of scaremongering as the “this is all a Ponzi scheme that will blow up any day now” types are spewing.

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

#167

Post by appstateguy »

drcode wrote: post #26
Animats wrote: post #18

This is going to put a dent into the classic Bitcoin exchange business models of "claim we were hacked", "front run the customers", and "speculate with the funds on deposit".

Yup, we'll probably be stuck with only 2-4 exchanges that are able to afford the regulatory burden and then the regulators will claim a victory for "helping the little guy."

Regulatory burdens like not using customer's deposit's as a their personal piggy bank? There's good reason for exchanges to be well regulated.

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

#168

Post by 7ero »

The whole regulatory framework behind cryptocurrency is a mess. IRS classifies cryptocurrencies as a property, while SEC classifies some as a security. Which only makes it harder to regulate. Problems like these need to be solve in order to help the ecosystem mature in a sustainable way.

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

#169

Post by heartbreak »

cal5k wrote: post #148
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…

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…

> If the SEC was going to come down like a ton of bricks they would have done so already.

Could you elaborate? Why do you think that the SEC has made a final policy decision on crypto/ICO?

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

#170

Post by tomkarlo »

d0lph wrote: post #131
Edmond wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

When they allow a foreign currency to become the de-facto medium of exchange in a nation, the government is basically admitting that it's lost the ability to issue currency and manage its own economy. The loss of economic control involved is so extreme that you'd only do it if you had essentially no other options left - the government is close to failure.
Post reply on HN