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

171–180 of 282 posts

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

#171

Post by jMyles »

Edmond wrote: post #44
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…

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…

Obviously not everyone has this same notion about the role of government. Since we (at least aspire to) live in a society of democratic ideals and freedom, what do you say to people who want innovation in this space?

I prefer for government to be wholly uninvolved in the matter of decided which assets constitute currency; it seems to me to be an utter conflict of interest.

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

#172

Post by tptacek »

cal5k wrote: post #164
maaaats wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Lik-ed. :)

Sorry, I'm a coin skeptic.

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

#173

Post by oreo81 »

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…

The fact that this comment is downvoted like this is frightening.

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

#174

Post by tptacek »

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…

I think reasonable people can disagree about the likelihood of upcoming enforcement actions. The only place where I feel entitled to get shouty about things is when people suggest that it's clear what the SEC is going to do next. I think it's easy to make a case that it's anything but clear.

I definitely wouldn't feel comfortable proclaiming with any certainty that Bitcoin or Ethereum or even ICOs were definitely going to fall afoul of the SEC. My understand is that the SEC is generally a lot smaller than "we" think it is and it's sort of a random function. Cryptocurrency is super important to HN, but the SEC's definition of "systemically important" is different than ours.

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

#175

Post by tomkarlo »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #157
djrogers wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> As big as bitcoin’s market cap is globally, it doesn’t actually appear to be causing a lot of employment Wealth effects are real [1]. Moreover, I know at least a handful of otherwise-intelligent individuals who used their credit cards to make leveraged Bitcoin plays. At the very least, they'll face collections and potentially bankruptcy as a result of the crypto crash. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_effec…

It's not clear that the number of people holding Bitcoin gains, multiplied by the wealth effect, is creating any significant impact on the global economy. Similarly, even if everyone who used credit cards to buy Bitcoin went bankrupt, that still wouldn't be that big a deal for the economy.

Right now Bitcoin lacks the kind of leverage and interconnection with other asset classes that made the real estate crash have a big impact. In that situation, for example, you had banks running 30:1 leverage on some assets, which mean that a 4% decline resulted in a total loss of equity.

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

#176

Post by oreo81 »

dragonwriter wrote: post #119
CryptoPunk wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Society shouldn't ban everything that hasn't proven to be socially beneficial.

Exchanges of the types prohibited by existing securities laws are not prohibited merely because they haven't proven to be socially beneficial, but because they have proven to be massively harmful. The idea that cryptocurrency as a subject of trading changes that in any way is a claim which requires some substantial basis before it would warrant an exception to the general rules written into law.

How is it massively harmful?

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

#177

Post by JumpCrisscross »

tomkarlo wrote: post #175
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> As big as bitcoin’s market cap is globally, it doesn’t actually appear to be causing a lot of employment Wealth effects are real [1]. Moreover, I know at least a handful of otherwise-intelligent individuals who used their credit cards to make leveraged Bitcoin plays. At the very least, they'll face collections and potentially bankruptcy as a result of the crypto crash. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_effec…

It's not clear that the number of people holding Bitcoin gains, multiplied by the wealth effect, is creating any significant impact on the global economy. Similarly, even if everyone who used credit cards to buy Bitcoin went bankrupt, that still wouldn't be that big a deal for the economy. Right now Bitcoin lacks the kind of leverage and interconnection with other asset classes that made the real estate crash have a…

> any significant impact on the global economy

I agree. I do not believe the cryptocurrency crash will foment a global economic crisis. I do believe it will create temporary hardships for many Americans, hardships which will in some form flow onto state and federal balance sheets.

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

#178

Post by jonknee »

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…

> The reason why many cryptocurrencies are considered securities is because there's a certain group of people promoting them as in investment

If by "certain group" you mean nearly all users then you are correct.

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

#179

Post by Karunamon »

wincy wrote: post #41
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…

The burden of proof is on the new product, not the current society. I don't think he needs "data and deep analysis", that work needs to be done by the people trying to convince you cryptocurrencies are the future. When the status quo is disrupted, it's perfectly reasonable to assume that it's a passing fad or won't work out. A product or asset, especially a radical step like cryptocurrencies, succeeding and being val…

The burden of proof is on the new product, not the current society

Why do you think that's how it works? Society is not a formal debate, and its members should be able to question any aspect of it at any time for any reason, whether or not they think they have a better idea. The entire concept of "burden of proof" is out the window here since many of its mores do not exist for rational reasons!

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

#180

Post by d0lph »

tomkarlo wrote: post #170
d0lph wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Good point, what about the Euro?
Post reply on HN