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

Insider Trading at Coinbase

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 348 posts

Re: Insider Trading at Coinbase

#211

Post by TheColorYellow »

wizardofdos wrote: post #74
pingeroo wrote: post #35

Why is the SEC so slow to regulate cryptoassets? Literally everything that they combatted for stocks and traditional assets is now taking place in the crypto ecosystem.

Because they are a gutted, disempowered US-regulator. Wrecked by 4 years of Trump and countless other presidents before them. Possibly there is also not the political will to ramp up the regulatory speed and power although I still have hope that Biden will be able to change that at least a bit.

What are you talking about? Read some history prior to the 4 years of the SEC.

Look at the suggested reforms the SEC was supposed to undertake AS IDENTIFIED BY CONGRESS. Then look at what actual reforms where implemented.

I'll help you out - almost none. The SEC has had a monopoly on financial market regulation since the 1930s and is just now becoming a victim to the cultural side affects of this monopoly. Shit, I actually think the SEC has done a phenomenal job regarding this and all other aspects of their job.

Re: Insider Trading at Coinbase

#212

Post by BitwiseFool »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #199
Jorge1o1 wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So a “poor” but highly knowledgeable financial planner making “only” $180k a year can’t invest in their friend’s startup because the regulators deem it too risky. But some random dentist can? https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-09-24/earnin...

The dentist can weather the poor investment. Knowledge does not make you financially solvent. It just improves your gambling odds as it relates to equity investment.

From my perspective, only letting people who are well off enough to 'weather the loss' seems like something that only exacerbates the wealth gap.

Re: Insider Trading at Coinbase

#213

Post by tastyfreeze »

thwayunion wrote: post #179
datadata wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Accredited investor rules was an example of not having a even playing field. The market is not open to everyone which contributes to unfair outcomes. I'd welcome reforms to transparency as well there, as lack of transparency also contributes to unfair outcomes (the company can exploit investors).

> Accredited investor rules was an example of not having a even playing field. 1. Having an income that qualifies you as an accredited investor doesn't mean that you will have access to higher quality investments. 2. Even if you don't qualify as an accredited investor, you probably still have access to the same set of investments that a capital-poor accredited investor has access to. As an accredited investor, I've n…

Prosper.com and similar lending platforms do not require a lot of capital but users are required to be accredited investors.

Re: Insider Trading at Coinbase

#214

Post by valeness »

lawrenceyan wrote: post #164
Traster wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is literally the scam of Web3. Just because you name something Web3 doesn't mean it's going to become the next big thing. There is no relationship between the success of Web2 and what will happen with Web3. Do you know how I know that? Because Web3 was coined by Sir Tim Berners Lee in 2006 as the semantic web and it didn't go anywhere. "Oh well, you see web3 is like web2 + 1 and we know web1+1 was great so web2+…

Feel free to call them whatever you want. They're just words meant to abstract a concept / zeitgeist. If I were to define the two respectively to someone who had never encountered the terms before, web2 would be the centralization of the early internet ecosystem in order to increase scalability + capture/generate profit funnels with web3 being the corresponding deconstruction back towards decentralization and economi…

But you have no evidence of this. You're just saying "This thing I like will be big because I like it"

Web2 had a lot of stars align to become "the next big thing". (The newfound capacity for advertising, smartphones driving adoption, and the mechanisms for tracking and stealing user data). And none of those stars had to deal with privacy, decentralization, security, encryption, etc. All of these things that we have been trying to get consumers to value and consider for years; are actually antithetical to corporation's profit incentive. The tech industry has tried for a very long time. The concepts behind web3, such as decentralization, are not new. They have been tried, and created, and even somewhat adopted, for a VERY long time. Blockchain is just the new mechanism to try and attack this, but like most things on the internet, the problem is not a technical one: It's a social and economic one.

Until you talk about dismantling capitalism, I don't see web3 as being anything more than a natural cycle of niche internet interest combined with speculative market scams that entrap vulnerable populations into caring about it just long enough for them get burned on the latest crypto rugpull.

Re: Insider Trading at Coinbase

#215

Post by TheColorYellow »

Most people on HN here don't have a clue of what they are talking about, whether it is financial market regulation or cryptocurrency or blockchain technology.

What makes this topic difficult to approach is the degree of complex issues which surrounds it. We are looking at the intersection of technology innovation, the long-standing failure of institutional and market mechanisms, and combined with a bleak macroeconomic context.

Most people here should take a good reminder that they actually aren't experts in everything.

Re: Insider Trading at Coinbase

#216

Post by datadata »

thwayunion wrote: post #197
datadata wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are basically saying that accredited investor rules are not successful in excluding people from making certain types of more desirable investments, because there are other barriers that are in place anyway. I think this is true, but beside the point. If you want to have an even playing field for investing, every barrier is an obstacle.

> I think this is true, but beside the point. I think you missed my point. To reiterate: the fact that people believe that it's not true is, ironically, a convincing justification for the accredited investor rule. I'm pointing out the irony, not defending the rule per se . > If you want to have an even playing field for investing, every barrier is an obstacle. This clearly isn't true. First, it's sort of prime facie…

I agree that markets are not natural and don't happen magically without human oversight and rules. But generally we want those systems to increase participation in the market. The criteria of net worth as a obstacle to market participation seems pretty indefensible here. It is hard for someone to commit to changing their net worth in the same way that a company can decide to become public, or that a wealthy person can sign a contract saying they are aware of investment risk. I would support some rule like "you must have either this net worth or prove that you are knowledgeable about investment in some way". The criteria has to be something that people are able to overcome.

Re: Insider Trading at Coinbase

#217

Post by ceejayoz »

TheColorYellow wrote: post #190
ceejayoz wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I’m curious as to where you’ve seen this sentiment from crypto fans? I mean, Ethereum itself forked over "hey that's no fair" when the DAO got compromised.

Are you saying the fork was a bad thing? Or are you critiquing crypto people for not living up to their values? For both points, I'd like to mention that there is no universal value set or profile.

Neither; I'm answering the question about "where you’ve seen this sentiment from crypto fans", and this is a solid example of it.

Re: Insider Trading at Coinbase

#218

Post by onlyrealcuzzo »

crystaln wrote: post #207
parkingrift wrote: post #107

Crypto fans want deregulated finance. Crypto fans get mad when deregulated finance is comically unfair. You really can’t make this up. Embrace this. It’s exactly what crypto is all about.

You’re conflating everyone in a massive group. Americans want abortion rights then they pass laws against abortion. Can’t make this up! Developers want open source then they make closed source products. Can’t make this up!

> Americans want abortion rights then they pass laws against abortion. Can’t make this up!

Literally only 32% of Americans are completely pro-choice: https://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx

And, actually, most Americans support limitations on abortion.

I'm not sure how you came to the idea that the vast majority of Americans are pro-choice.

Re: Insider Trading at Coinbase

#219

Post by asdffdsa »

crystaln wrote: post #207
parkingrift wrote: post #107

Crypto fans want deregulated finance. Crypto fans get mad when deregulated finance is comically unfair. You really can’t make this up. Embrace this. It’s exactly what crypto is all about.

You’re conflating everyone in a massive group. Americans want abortion rights then they pass laws against abortion. Can’t make this up! Developers want open source then they make closed source products. Can’t make this up!

The whole point of crypto is that it was a form of currency that's unregulated, so a more accurate comparison would be "open source advocates complain when other people use their code without their knowledge. Can't make this up!"

Re: Insider Trading at Coinbase

#220

Post by mistrial9 »

thwayunion wrote: post #197
datadata wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are basically saying that accredited investor rules are not successful in excluding people from making certain types of more desirable investments, because there are other barriers that are in place anyway. I think this is true, but beside the point. If you want to have an even playing field for investing, every barrier is an obstacle.

> I think this is true, but beside the point. I think you missed my point. To reiterate: the fact that people believe that it's not true is, ironically, a convincing justification for the accredited investor rule. I'm pointing out the irony, not defending the rule per se . > If you want to have an even playing field for investing, every barrier is an obstacle. This clearly isn't true. First, it's sort of prime facie…

neither you nor parent post are absolutely right, of course. In the USA in the 2000 era, a lot of people with the ability to place large betting stakes on the table, using access to market-makers and leveraged buys of all kinds, were able to push around a LOT of money, mostly profitable, for quite a while. The party ended, except it didn't. The same over-leveraged tactics by players with access, except this time against one of the most protected asset classes, homes, almost collapsed the entire system with their excess. There are tomes written about this now, fifteen years later. Its not clean, fair or balanced.
Post reply on HN