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

271–280 of 282 posts

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

#271

Post by josu »

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

>Except, most of the major exchanges are registered in places like Seychelles or the British Virgin Islands as shell corporations.

I don't think this is true. Apart from Bitmex, I'm not aware of other major exchanges being registered there. Bitstamp (Europe), Coinbase (US), Kraken (US), Bitfinex (HK), Binance (HK?).

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

#272

Post by paulie_a »

shkkmo wrote: post #210
smacktoward wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's possible I'm misreading the specific requirements -- I am not a securities lawyer, my HN comments are not legal advice, etc. If you are operating one of these platforms, the issuance of this document is a good reason to have a chat with a qualified attorney to figure out exactly how it affects your business. But that just underlines my main point, which was that this document is a lot more than just a press rele…

I definitely agree with your main point, (and I am also not a lawyer)

Off topic but can we drop the "I am not a lawyer" thing in forums?

It is not necessary. Do you really think your random internet comment will be considered legal advice?

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

#273

Post by tomkarlo »

lagadu wrote: post #268
tomkarlo wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'd argue this isn't inconsistent; these states are so small they effectively have ceded control of their economy, as well as their national defense, to the larger European community. Kosovo and Montenegro, for example, previously used the German Mark. This seems pretty close to an admission that for whatever reason (scale, stability) they're not able to issue their own currency in a credible manner.

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

#274

Post by d0lph »

tomkarlo wrote: post #230
d0lph wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good point, what about the Euro?

See my other comment, but TLDR it's not a foreign currency if you're a Eurozone country.

Does it really change that much though? I suppose they would not be able to control inflation, but taxes and tariffs would remain the same. It's not a total loss of control.

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

#275

Post by scamcoin »

ballenf wrote: post #28
aje403 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course they would have laughed in their face. Do you see Nasdaq trying to list Dogecoin? There is no ambiguity or uncertainty here - there is a big problem and they're trying to reign it in with gloved hands before it becomes one and it turns into a big economic mess that the government will have to foot the bill to eventually clean up. This site likes to complain about wealthy inequality - common people like your…

> who have provided less than zero benefit or service to our society Was following your argument up to that point. Making such a value judgment requires, in my opinion, a lot more data and deep analysis. Cryptocurrencies have the potential of loosening the grasp of oppressive regimes over their people. And it takes those other investors for the process to function. But, the reality and therefore data is needed to jud…

If you look though the code and math behind Bitcoin and other cryptocoin projects it's quite evident that there is malice and a manipulative design with even Bitcoin.

OP was making a point about how easy it is to produce cryptocoins (in terms of both launching the software, and in terms of measurable capital cost to mine coins).

Coupled with the history of Bitcoin and what has predominately been the demographic attracted to an quasi-anonymous digital token for trading has been anarcho-capitalists who bought drugs and child pornography on TOR and silk road etc.

This comic sums up the point:

https://i.imgur.com/3VbttYh.png

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

#276

Post by Animats »

saosebastiao wrote: post #79
Animats wrote: post #18

This is going to put a dent into the classic Bitcoin exchange business models of "claim we were hacked", "front run the customers", and "speculate with the funds on deposit".

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…

If you register with the SEC as a broker, dealer, or exchange, you don't have to deal with state level money transmitter regulations.

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

#277

Post by TallGuyShort »

voidmain0001 wrote: post #144
lagadu wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"money" is a representation of value that is recognised as such by a group of people. If a few people decide that a bunch of stones are now money[0] (in other words, represents value), should they be arrested? Similarly, when a group does the same not to stones but to seashells [1] or salt are they committing securities fraud? Someone decides to do the same for a few hashes on the internet and suddenly they can't? Wh…

I know a car dealership that had a customer attempt to purchase a vehicle with a cheque drawn on a currency called RA, or something similar. The customer said that they were paying the sum of $30,000 in comparable spiritual RA. Would you have taken the cheque?

The question is not whether or not someone would accept it. The question is, would it make sense for charges to be filed against you if you had accepted the cheque (or not accepted the cheque).

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

#278

Post by [deleted] »

CryptoPunk wrote: post #220
JeremyBanks wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's no massaging. The potentially illegality of many cryptoasset platforms has always been clear to everyone who wasn't in denial. They're trying to race ahead of law enforcement. Kind-of like Uber, but the SEC is a lot harder to plow through than local traffic enforcement. I, for one, welcome our PonziCoin-banning overlords.

>>I, for one, welcome our PonziCoin-banning overlords. That's a pretty totalitarian outlook. You're not content with not using cryptocurrency yourself. You want to prevent everyone else, with punitive measures, from using it too.

[deleted]

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

#279

Post by xwvvvvwx »

spiralx wrote: post #269
xwvvvvwx wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I don't know more than that tweet, but I would say Nathaniel Popper is a reasonably reliable source.

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

#280

Post by JeremyBanks »

CryptoPunk wrote: post #257
ianai wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And bidding all gaming GPUs up isn’t punitive?

Of course not. Two parties coming to an agreement in a free market to trade currency for a GPU is not a violation of a third party's right to buy that GPU. Putting two people behind bars because they traded some 1s and 0s that happen to be valued by some set of people is a flagrant violation of rights.

Which rights?
Post reply on HN