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

191–200 of 282 posts

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

#191

Post by TomMarius »

s73v3r_ wrote: post #189
TomMarius wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think a better way to say it is that it helps to prevent turns of current regimes (that already have Internet infrastructure built and used) into oppressive regimes.

How do you reconcile that with the idea that North Korea, perhaps the poster child for oppressive regimes, is being propped up by Bitcoin?

I don't know how is that relevant to what I'm saying at all. I never said it can't be used for evil. Also, North Korea doesn't fulfill the condition of being internet-developed area before the turn to an oppressive regime happened.

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

#192

Post by dredmorbius »

LAMike wrote: post #51

What will the SEC do when 0x decentralized exchanges pop up? There are already a dozen in development... pure p2p trading from a hardware wallet... https://0xproject.com/

There are numerous solid systems-theoretic, information-theoretic, psychological (not unrelated to the two above), and sociological reasons to not expect decentralisation to be a major force.

Amazon, Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Apple, and Twitter haven't exactly decentralised their respective areas of operation. Despite no intrinsic barriers (other than the four mentioned above) to decentralised systems developing.

Even Mastodon has largely settled on a small number of very large nodes.

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

#193

Post by s73v3r_ »

aje403 wrote: post #130
Snackchez wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's your stance on forex markets then?

Cryptocurrency markets have absolutely nothing to do with forex markets and the suggestion that they share commonalities or should be compared together is both deceptive, ignorant, and perpetuates a volume of misinformation

I feel that's a hand-wavy explanation that doesn't actually explain anything, and is similar to patents being granted solely on being the same thing that was done before, but "on a computer".

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

#194

Post by vanattab »

Can anyone tell me if Valve's Steam Marketplace would constitute a "securities" platform. What is the diffrence between Valve facilitating the buying/selling some ingame currency for arbitrary amounts of real dollars between users and facilitating the buying/selling of a cryptocurrency?

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

#195

Post by Sangermaine »

patrickaljord wrote: post #141
cal5k wrote: 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 no…

>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?

Because they can afford to take the hit if the investment fails.

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

#196

Post by Sangermaine »

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".

>So if some anonymous person invents cryptocurrencies, at what point are you supposed to be considered securities?

Through the long-settled laws, rules, and procedures used to determine whether anything is a security.

Even though cryptocurrencies are the new hotness, this isn't a new or particularly interesting area of law. The tools for analyzing what counts as a security have long existed.

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

#197

Post by mbgaxyz »

JustAnotherPat wrote: post #143
cal5k wrote: 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.

Source?

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

#198

Post by s73v3r_ »

patrickaljord wrote: post #141
cal5k wrote: 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 no…

Because the rich can afford to lose.

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

#199

Post by acekingqueen »

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".

Freelancer, here.

Do not be fooled by fancy looking "whitepapers", professional websites, and cute mascots.

Whitepapers are bought usually from the lowest bidder who can bullshit technical keyword bingo. This person may not be involved with the company or even know much about the coin itself as often these job listings indicate the project manager themselves knows nothing about the coin they plan to offer except their own personal dreams of wealth. Same with every other part of these ICOs. The daily freelancer job listings are flooded with requests of this nature; I might estimate 1:25 to 1:50 of the offers are for ICO schemes.

Please be very careful.

Post reply on HN