Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Coinbase issued Wells notice by SEC

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 327 posts

Re: Coinbase issued Wells notice by SEC

#21

Post by stickfigure »

cududa wrote: post #14
tzm wrote: post #5

> "We asked the SEC specifically to identify which assets on our platforms they believe may be securities, and they declined to do so." Sums up the case quite well.

No it doesn’t. They’ve literally told them in the past when they were creating financial products that they were securities. Their entire schtik is to say “We called it something different so it’s not a security.” SEC: “Yes it is.” Coinbase: “The SEC won’t engage with us and tell us what aspects of our business is a security.” SEC: “1) that’s not how securities law works, you’re the one that has to hire lawyers 2) we…

If it's so clear to you, maybe you can answer the question?

Re: Coinbase issued Wells notice by SEC

#22

Post by onlyrealcuzzo »

overthrow wrote: post #19
arcticbull wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nah, the answer is all of them except Bitcoin. I think all parties to this Wells-based conversation know that and Coinbase is just posturing for the court of public opinion. [edit] I should say, Coinbase has been preparing for this forever. They acquired a broker-dealer license years ago, back in 2018. [1] [1] https://brokercheck.finra.org/firm/summary/151143

Yep, Gensler has outright said that “everything else other than bitcoin is a security.”[1] There's no chance Coinbase isn't aware of this. I don't know what they hope to accomplish by pretending otherwise. [1]: https://cryptoslate.com/sec-chair-gensler-confirms-everythin...

Why is Bitcoin not a security but if I fork Bitcoin it is a security?

Re: Coinbase issued Wells notice by SEC

#23

Post by yieldcrv »

kristopolous wrote: post #17
tzm wrote: post #5

> "We asked the SEC specifically to identify which assets on our platforms they believe may be securities, and they declined to do so." Sums up the case quite well.

Their gdax/cbpro api originally called it securities and instruments (I started using it in 2017). It eventually got renamed to "products" but yeah, this is just theater.

just means they likely built it on top of some other existing algorithmic trading library or expertise that didn't account for anything aside from securities and derivatives existing

Re: Coinbase issued Wells notice by SEC

#24

Post by idiotsecant »

copumpkin wrote: post #18
meowkit wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This begs the question of what differentiates Bitcoin? Besides being the first, there aren’t really any structural differences for the functionality or the development and marketing of BTC than other coins. The only sufficient argument I see is the naivety around the distribution method which implies a metric of decentralization. To me that implies other coins should not be considered securities if they pass some dec…

It's different in that nobody can control it. Everything since bitcoin has had some form of leadership, including Ethereum, that can reasonably consistently get the network to fork and cause things to happen. Bitcoin struggled for years to get a change adopted that most of the community thought was a good one, because nobody, not even Satoshi if they are still around, could change it.

This is a silly argument. A community forks, not 'leadership'. The mechanism for forking the project is literally the same in both cases. Please describe what mechanism, ETH for example, includes that differentiates it from BTC in some way. This is just typical crypto tribalism and not rooted in a technical basis in any way.

Re: Coinbase issued Wells notice by SEC

#25

Post by latchkey »

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/

Re: Coinbase issued Wells notice by SEC

#26

Post by latchkey »

vyrotek wrote: post #9

Interesting coincidence. From yesterday: "Cathie Wood of ARKK sold 160,887 shares of Coinbase, COIN, today." https://twitter.com/unusual_whales/status/163833492762331136...

I don't know why you're getting downvoted, but this is massively relevant. She sold before anyone else knew this was coming.

Re: Coinbase issued Wells notice by SEC

#27

Post by dragonwriter »

idiotsecant wrote: post #24
copumpkin wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's different in that nobody can control it. Everything since bitcoin has had some form of leadership, including Ethereum, that can reasonably consistently get the network to fork and cause things to happen. Bitcoin struggled for years to get a change adopted that most of the community thought was a good one, because nobody, not even Satoshi if they are still around, could change it.

This is a silly argument. A community forks, not 'leadership'. The mechanism for forking the project is literally the same in both cases. Please describe what mechanism, ETH for example, includes that differentiates it from BTC in some way. This is just typical crypto tribalism and not rooted in a technical basis in any way.

> Please describe what mechanism, ETH for example, includes that differentiates it from BTC in some way.

On what legal basis do you insist that the differentiation must be by inclusion of a “mechanism”?

Re: Coinbase issued Wells notice by SEC

#28

Post by paulpauper »

latchkey wrote: post #25

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)?

Re: Coinbase issued Wells notice by SEC

#29

Post by idiotsecant »

dragonwriter wrote: post #27
idiotsecant wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a silly argument. A community forks, not 'leadership'. The mechanism for forking the project is literally the same in both cases. Please describe what mechanism, ETH for example, includes that differentiates it from BTC in some way. This is just typical crypto tribalism and not rooted in a technical basis in any way.

> Please describe what mechanism, ETH for example, includes that differentiates it from BTC in some way. On what legal basis do you insist that the differentiation must be by inclusion of a “mechanism”?

Ok...do you have some other proposal by which we can judge systems that use mechanisms to do things?

Re: Coinbase issued Wells notice by SEC

#30

Post by cududa »

stickfigure wrote: post #21
cududa wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No it doesn’t. They’ve literally told them in the past when they were creating financial products that they were securities. Their entire schtik is to say “We called it something different so it’s not a security.” SEC: “Yes it is.” Coinbase: “The SEC won’t engage with us and tell us what aspects of our business is a security.” SEC: “1) that’s not how securities law works, you’re the one that has to hire lawyers 2) we…

If it's so clear to you, maybe you can answer the question?

I’m not an expert or a lawyer but it seems pretty clear. Going by what the SEC has literally told them:

Coinbase taking money from depositors, loaning it out, and giving the depositors interest from the loan, is a security product. Page 1 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/COMPS-1885/pdf/COMPS-188...

It… really doesn’t seem complicated. The SEC told Coinbase they’d be in violation of security laws if they expanded these products, last summer. And did so publicly.

I don’t understand how this could not be more clear. The first page of the securities act and the remaining of the paragraph that goes the page 2 describes exactly what they’re doing, and defines it as a security. The SEC has told them this is a security.

I’m genuinely baffled how people are still amplifying this “well they won’t tell us what part is a security!” They’ve been explicitly clear. The law is not hard to understand - just read the above link for 2 pages. I feel like I’m taking crazy pills here.

Post reply on HN