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

Coinbase CEO: we're preparing to go to court with the U.S. SEC

cnbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 245 posts

Re: Coinbase CEO: we're preparing to go to court with the U.S. SEC

#231

Post by latchkey »

vkou wrote: post #229
latchkey wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, there isn't. https://www.coindesk.com/policy/2023/04/19/sec-chair-gensler...

That has nothing to do with what I said, or with why Coinbase is in hot water right now. Eth might not be a security, and Coinbase would still be trading other unregistered securities. It's telling that all their press releases don't actually address the problem. (Also, it's not the exchange's responsibility to register securities, it's the issuer's.)

Part of the Wells Notice is around the Coinbase Earn stacking service, which is staking ETH. That's what the SEC is going after and which Gensler can't even answer is a security or not.

Re: Coinbase CEO: we're preparing to go to court with the U.S. SEC

#232

Post by humanizersequel »

tehlike wrote: post #227
humanizersequel wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> not staking, but the product offered by Coinbase themselves But the product Coinbase offers is staking.

You are missing the nuance. You can go ahead and try staking your money yourself on the protocol. But do it through coinbase equation changes. Also coinbase earn does defi yield (which is more clear cut securities), but i am in mexico now, and can't tell if this were the case in the US or i am seeing geofenced content.

AFAICT (and I suppose it's possible I'm missing something), here in the US there is nothing on Coinbase Earn besides staking.

>do it through coinbase equation changes

Why? It's still just staking.

Re: Coinbase CEO: we're preparing to go to court with the U.S. SEC

#233

Post by BLanen »

0zemp1c wrote: post #7

I actually agree with Armstrong here - the SEC has had plenty of time to assess the market for crypto products and offer clear rules...it almost feels like the indecisiveness is an intentional policy used to cow the industry.

> We need regulation

> Ok, you're a securities exchange and have to act like one

> NOT LIKE THAT

Re: Coinbase CEO: we're preparing to go to court with the U.S. SEC

#234

Post by [deleted] »

latchkey wrote: post #230
vkou wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If a shitcoin can't meet the low, low bar for registration, that's an indictment of the shitcoin, not of my argument. Don't walk, run away from it.

What about ETH then? https://twitter.com/twobitidiot/status/1648732457448120321

[deleted]

Re: Coinbase CEO: we're preparing to go to court with the U.S. SEC

#235

Post by vkou »

latchkey wrote: post #231
vkou wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That has nothing to do with what I said, or with why Coinbase is in hot water right now. Eth might not be a security, and Coinbase would still be trading other unregistered securities. It's telling that all their press releases don't actually address the problem. (Also, it's not the exchange's responsibility to register securities, it's the issuer's.)

Part of the Wells Notice is around the Coinbase Earn stacking service, which is staking ETH. That's what the SEC is going after and which Gensler can't even answer is a security or not.

ETH might not be a security, but staking ETH is almost definitely one.

Dollars and orange trees aren't securities, but as soon as I start 'staking' dollars and orange trees into financial instruments which earn rewards, it becomes a security.

Asking 'Is Eth a security?' is asking the wrong question. Asking 'Is a security?' is the right question. Gensler was in the process of giving such an answer, and was interrupted ~40 times in that four-minute clip. It's really quite embarrassing.

Re: Coinbase CEO: we're preparing to go to court with the U.S. SEC

#236

Post by Fatnino »

legitster wrote: post #177
danaris wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And what's the fundamental problem with that? No business has an inalienable right to government support or sanction for their business model, least of all when their business is 100% in an area that is brand-new, poorly-understood, poorly-regulated, and absolutely rife with scams.

Sure, but I don't think it should be the government's prerogative to shut down businesses either, just on the grounds that regulators find the industry annoying. If people want to buy their silly crypto trinkets I don't see how moving it behind the curtain of a brokerage actually helps anyone. I mean, the whole SEC thing is a bit of theater: they can't actually do anything to protect against frauds and scams and bad…

Like when the government shut down a startup by some guy named Ross who was just trying to make a buck on the internet with his unregulated pharmacy. What a travesty.

/s

Re: Coinbase CEO: we're preparing to go to court with the U.S. SEC

#237

Post by daedalus_f »

fallingknife wrote: post #184
daedalus_f wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If your coin meets the Howie test it’s a security and must be registered with the SEC. If you go to the SEC and say “hey, please register my security so I can scam some people”, and they say no, your security doesn’t stop being a security, it’s just not a registered security. Going on to cry about them then prosecuting you for operating an unregistered securities exchange is purile.

Your example is idiotic because nobody is claiming that Coinbase is a scam (if they were the FBI would handle it, not the SEC), and because they are a licensed broker dealer. If particular crypto token is a scam, then they can say "you can't register token X because it's a scam." But they aren't saying that. They are just saying you can't register any tokens at all. If they can't be registered as securities, then how…

The SEC’s position is very clear - they could be registered as securities and are securities but the SEC is not going to register them because they would like crypto to go away.

Also a licence to operate as a broker does not permit you to operate as an exchange. They are very different things, separated in traditional finance to prevent the sort of shenanigans (like trading against your own customers) that crypto exchanges get up to.

Re: Coinbase CEO: we're preparing to go to court with the U.S. SEC

#238

Post by latchkey »

vkou wrote: post #235
latchkey wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Part of the Wells Notice is around the Coinbase Earn stacking service, which is staking ETH. That's what the SEC is going after and which Gensler can't even answer is a security or not.

ETH might not be a security, but staking ETH is almost definitely one. Dollars and orange trees aren't securities, but as soon as I start 'staking' dollars and orange trees into financial instruments which earn rewards, it becomes a security. Asking 'Is Eth a security?' is asking the wrong question. Asking 'Is a security?' is the right question. Gensler was in the process of giving such an answer, and was interrupted…

> ETH might not be a security, but staking ETH is almost definitely one.

Ok, so if ETH isn't a security and staking ETH is a security, then the SEC should be able to provide a registration service for that, right? That's the problem, they can't seem to manage to do that.

> Dollars and orange trees aren't securities, but as soon as I start 'staking' dollars and orange trees into financial instruments which earn rewards, it becomes a security.

Sorry, you lost me on that one.

> Gensler was in the process of giving such an answer, and was interrupted ~40 times in that four-minute clip.

He should have had a concise answer and acted a bit less flustered then. It was a yes/no question to a professional.

Re: Coinbase CEO: we're preparing to go to court with the U.S. SEC

#239

Post by traveler01 »

latchkey wrote: post #123
traveler01 wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dangerous to side with crypto stuff on Hackernews...

No, it isn't. I side with crypto all the time and I see plenty of other people do it too. I also see the same loud voices, with a lot of karma, repeat their tropes over and over again. If people believe that it is "dangerous", that is a sad way to control a narrative. Here we are 10+ years later and crypto hasn't gone to zero. If anything, it is discussed more than ever. What HN requires is sane responses about crypt…

My past experiences with saying anything positive about crypto has being:

- Being downvoted to hell - Comments attacking crypto disrergading completely my opinion

Re: Coinbase CEO: we're preparing to go to court with the U.S. SEC

#240

Post by johndhi »

iudqnolq wrote: post #170
johndhi wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Technically I'd say administrative law judges are a lower rung than US Magistrates, but yes, fair enough. To be clear, though, Grewal was a magistrate in one of the most important districts (Northern District of California) on some of the most important cases in history.

Good points. I'm not sure if this is right but I wasn't thinking of ALJs as being in the "federal system", which I admit isn't a precise term. In terms of distinguished prior careers I'd say that's less than plenty of current lawyers though. One example could be Neal Katyal, who has agued all kinds of shit before the supreme court.

Imo Katyal wouldn't meet the same stakes I'm suggesting are present for Grewal.

Katyal is famous for being an advocate at the highest level - arguing zealously for his clients in high stakes scenarios. Grewal is different: he is famous for being a neutral third party (a judge) in high stakes scenarios. Judges are respected in a different way from lawyers. They're expected to be above reproach, basically. And now one is arguing on behalf of Coinbase.

Post reply on HN