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

261–270 of 282 posts

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

#261

Post by semiel »

whb07 wrote: post #134
matthewbauer wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which markets are those? Besides black markets

Well for one any sort of auction/market like ebay, flee market, high end auctioneers, the like. They are trading precious metals/jewelry, other objects in which the buyer hopes to profit at some later point in the future. No one is out there buying XYZ widget in the hopes of burning their savings. No one is buying an ultra rare watch for $10 million in hopes that one day it will be worth less.

Those aren't securities, though, because their value doesn't depend on the efforts of the seller, which is one of the prongs of the Howey test.

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

#262

Post by pm »

snissn wrote: post #258
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…

Your comment makes me think of beanie babies during the bubble. They hardly seem like securities, or do they? Your definition implies they are if there are folks assuring you they will go up in value. Also less cray example, old cars, classic records, guitars, art etc. Is a van gogh a security? An antique first printing of moby dick? Thanks!

Assuming you're not being facetious, I would think securities means something that goes up in value that doesn't have an inherently physical nature.

NB. Correct me if I'm mistaken, I have little knowledge in this area.

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

#263

Post by catominor »

pm wrote: post #262
snissn wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your comment makes me think of beanie babies during the bubble. They hardly seem like securities, or do they? Your definition implies they are if there are folks assuring you they will go up in value. Also less cray example, old cars, classic records, guitars, art etc. Is a van gogh a security? An antique first printing of moby dick? Thanks!

Assuming you're not being facetious, I would think securities means something that goes up in value that doesn't have an inherently physical nature. NB. Correct me if I'm mistaken, I have little knowledge in this area.

Check out the Howey Test. It's what you have to fail to be determined not a security, this definition is fairly short and good: http://www.legalandcompliance.com/securities-resources/secur...

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

#264

Post by em3rgent0rdr »

Qub3d wrote: post #204
lmkg wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We'll be stuck with the 2-4 exchanges run by the few people still interested in using BitCoin as a way to change the world, instead of trying to use it as a not-yet-illegal get-rich-quick scheme.

"Tulips are an excellent investment strategy. As a guy who can sell you tulip bulbs, you can trust me!"

The whole "Tulip Bubble" myth is overblown. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/there-never-was-real-...

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

#266

Post by lagadu »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #101
lagadu wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's effectively the only way to do it but the way around it is fairly simple: use a bank account on another country, one that is OK with crypto along with non-US based exchanges.

> the way around it is fairly simple: use a bank account on another country Willful money laundering isn't a "simple" risk-reward decision.

I wasn't describing that with the intent of laundering money, I mean simply having money in a different jurisdiction and using it locally. I can use my cards from different countries (I've lived in a bunch of different places) pretty much anywhere around the world, the money I have there in those currencies is subject first and foremost to local laws.

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

#267

Post by lagadu »

vkou wrote: post #97
lagadu wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's effectively the only way to do it but the way around it is fairly simple: use a bank account on another country, one that is OK with crypto along with non-US based exchanges.

Most non-US banks are really, really, really disinterested in dealing with US citizens, because of the regulatory burdens. Unless you're pushing tens or hundreds of millions of dollars around, they'll probably tell you to go pound sand.

I see, I was unaware of that.

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

#268

Post by lagadu »

tomkarlo wrote: post #229
Legogris wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not necessarily. Government can delegate things up or down - the Euro is not an effect of Germany, the UK or France admitting economic defeat but a realization that a shared economy can benefit all.

Yes, but that's very different - the Eurozone countries are not allowing another nation's currency to become their defacto currency, they're creating a pooled economy where they all still have a voice in the management of the common currency. (And it's still causing a ton of problems, when you consider what's happened in Spain, Italy and Greece.) It's radically different from allowing your defacto currency to be one…

There's an exception to that: most European microstates adopted the Euro but aren't part of the Eurozone (nor the EU) and have no power in decisions made about it. Of course I concede that microstates have unique properties that break away from most considerations that are applicable to "typical" sovereign nations but it's not as clear-cut as you describe.

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

#269

Post by spiralx »

xwvvvvwx wrote: post #10
oculusthrift wrote: post #6

makes me think about the circle and poloniex deal that just happened. Polo seems very unlawful to me considering all the shitcoins that are listed.

Polo / Circle discussed with the SEC before the purchase. SEC provided an exemption from prosecution provided Polo registered as a fully licensed exchange. https://twitter.com/nathanielpopper/status/96820257071911731...

Is there any actual evidence for this claim though?

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

#270

Post by ilkan »

Please consider your words.. I see many posts using "money" interchangeably with "investment"; and misunderstanding the financial definition of "exchange" (eg trying to argue eBay is the same as Coinbase). Maybe that's the disconnect, the word doesn't mean what you think it means.

Like using webapp, app and program interchangeably "well they all run on computers right?"

Post reply on HN