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

231–240 of 282 posts

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

#231

Post by nosuchthing »

WikipediasBad wrote: post #183
gwbas1c wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Very interesting idea. Have you heard about Basecoin and Seigniorage shares? They are trying to do exactly that: http://www.getbasecoin.com/ Are these coins securities in your opinion?

Stablecoins are effectively digital money laundering tools.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty_Reserve#Criminal_inves...

Why bother using a convoluted blockchain stablecoin rube goldberg machine where you need to jump though several hoops just to use it, when you could use a service like venmo, square, stripe, etc? What use case would justify the need for a stable coin if not for evading the law?

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

#232

Post by thejerz »

There's a lot of misinformation here about US-based laws. Here are the facts:

1. All US based exchanges require FinCen registration

2. Most states require a money transmission license

Before choosing an exchange, ask to see their FinCen and state licenses. Coinbase's licenses, for example, are posted publicly:

https://www.coinbase.com/legal/licenses

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

#233

Post by crypt1d »

IncRnd wrote: post #152
crypt1d wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see you are trying to be clever, but that comment doesn't really bring anything to the table. Sure, you can try to filter/block crypto transactions but that will be A LOT harder than blocking dissident blogs. One of the biggest selling points of many decentralized systems is to be censorship resistant.

Blocking these transactions is trivial to do. Employers detect and block them constantly. The purported censorship resistance of these coins has nothing to do with the shape of the traffic.

thats only true in theory really, because there are many ways to go around the same blocks. eg , by simply storing ur wallet node remotely. nobody said that there is something special about the traffic, just that the system is set up in a way that does makes it impossible for governments to effectively stop you from enjoying ur rights to freely transact.

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

#235

Post by bfuller »

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

Come on, you can't think of ONE commonality between forex markets and crypto markets? Thats just being intentionally obtuse.

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

#236

Post by htormey »

figgis wrote: post #226
Sangermaine wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which it will be, as the vast, vast majority of people aren't committed to accepting endless fraud and embezzlement out of ideological zealotry. Libertarians can still form their own exchanges where they are free to be continuously swindled and conned.

>Libertarians can still form their own exchanges where they are free to be continuously swindled and conned. Would all of this not also remove the ability to create those 'free exchanges'?

Backroom poker games and people sharing copyrighted music they didn’t pay for are still a thing so most likely no.

You will still have the ability to start an anonymous exchange, it just wont necessarily be legal in all countries.

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

#237

Post by saryant »

nosuchthing wrote: post #223
saosebastiao wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Money transmitter regulation at state level already enforce the first and third. Money transmitters must retain and account for all customer funds on deposit. That is why I won't put any money into an exchange that avoids states that regulate exchanges as money transmitters (looking at you, Kraken). I really wish the SEC or FinRA would supercede the state level money transmitter regulations. It makes little sense for…

Except, most of the major exchanges are registered in places like Seychelles or the British Virgin Islands as shell corporations. Bitfinex and Bitmex are two of the largest exchanges and it certainly seems like there's frequent incredibly shady activity with frequent large flash crashes presumably as insider trading to liquidate margin calls and/or stop loss orders. https://medium.com/@bitfinexed/latest

Isn't Coinbase registered in and regulated by New York State?

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

#238

Post by IncRnd »

crypt1d wrote: post #233
IncRnd wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Blocking these transactions is trivial to do. Employers detect and block them constantly. The purported censorship resistance of these coins has nothing to do with the shape of the traffic.

thats only true in theory really, because there are many ways to go around the same blocks. eg , by simply storing ur wallet node remotely. nobody said that there is something special about the traffic, just that the system is set up in a way that does makes it impossible for governments to effectively stop you from enjoying ur rights to freely transact.

All you have done is restate what you wrote.

There is empirical evidence that this traffic can and does get blocked. Furthermore, many cloud providers stop this traffic.

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

#239

Post by nosuchthing »

saryant wrote: post #237
nosuchthing wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except, most of the major exchanges are registered in places like Seychelles or the British Virgin Islands as shell corporations. Bitfinex and Bitmex are two of the largest exchanges and it certainly seems like there's frequent incredibly shady activity with frequent large flash crashes presumably as insider trading to liquidate margin calls and/or stop loss orders. https://medium.com/@bitfinexed/latest

Isn't Coinbase registered in and regulated by New York State?

Yes, I've only heard Coinbase/GDAX and Gemini are the only fully regulated and audited US based exchanges which have qualified for the New york BitLicense.

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

#240

Post by pcr0 »

nosuchthing wrote: post #231
WikipediasBad wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Very interesting idea. Have you heard about Basecoin and Seigniorage shares? They are trying to do exactly that: http://www.getbasecoin.com/ Are these coins securities in your opinion?

Stablecoins are effectively digital money laundering tools. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty_Reserve#Criminal_inves... Why bother using a convoluted blockchain stablecoin rube goldberg machine where you need to jump though several hoops just to use it, when you could use a service like venmo, square, stripe, etc? What use case would justify the need for a stable coin if not for evading the law?

Cross-border payments is one. BTC was a cheaper and more convenient alternative to Western Union before the tx fees skyrocketed.
Post reply on HN