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

Coinbase issued Wells notice by SEC

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 327 posts

Re: Coinbase issued Wells notice by SEC

#291

Post by bardworx »

codehalo wrote: post #61
bardworx wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Predominantly, from my understanding, it’s because: 1. Bitcoin was classified as “currency” by Clayton. 2. It’s the closest to being decentralized so no “organization will benefit from the work of others”. 3. Growth of Bitcoin wasn’t initially speculative but as a use of currency, which is different from whatever token you fork as its goal would be for speculative trading, failing the Howey test.

Nothing you said here makes a fork of the bitcoin code with a completely different genesis block (or ANY fork at ANY block of the bitcoin chain) a security.

Why would people buy it?

Re: Coinbase issued Wells notice by SEC

#292

Post by hef19898 »

mrguyorama wrote: post #290
hef19898 wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The FAA isn't in charge of airspace access anyway, is it?

Who do you file your flight plan with?

Shows that aerospace, read the development, certification and production of aircraft, is different from aviation, as in the use of said aircraft. Guess which side I am on.

Re: Coinbase issued Wells notice by SEC

#293

Post by mrguyorama »

TheAlchemist wrote: post #139

Ah Coinbase ! SEC already told them very clearly that those are securities. Coinbase answer ? "Coinbase does not list securities. End of story" Here is their own answer from a year ago: https://www.coinbase.com/blog/coinbase-does-not-list-securit ... They can cry all their want - it's all PR trying to get public support. Kind of like VCs did with SVB deposits insurance..

Brian is literally on twitter telling crypto bros to vote these people out. Sounds like they aren't so sure that they aren't selling securities

Re: Coinbase issued Wells notice by SEC

#294

Post by idiotsecant »

codehalo wrote: post #77
adastra22 wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would that be relevant? It happened, that’s all that matters. Edit: the context of this is the question of whether Ethereum is a security. The SEC has already ruled that it is, and the ruling came down to the fact that it had a presale (via the Howey test).

It's not clear yet that the SEC has any jurisdiction over cryptocurrencies. At this point, their rulings are empty, and perhaps it will be decided in court.

Maybe they don't have jurisdiction over crypto, but they definitely have jurisdiction over business entities with American presence. If they decide that you're accepting cash dollars for something security-like, it doesn't particularly matter what the underlying assets are, I don't think.

Re: Coinbase issued Wells notice by SEC

#295

Post by friend_and_foe »

aardvarkr wrote: post #262
friend_and_foe wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That doesnt satisfy #3. People buy gold expecting profit through no work of their own as well. Gold is a commodity. The key there is the efforts of others , someone has to do something for you to be profitable. Just speculating on something doesn't qualify. Some tokens qualify as common enterprise and some don't. And lots and lots of tokens are sold on the expectation of profit, almost all of them.

Gold fails #2. It’s not a common enterprise. There’s no investment contract to owning a piece of gold. Crypto tokens, on the other hand, are literally defined by contracts written in code.

A contract in the legal sense requires a counterparty, as well as legality and a benefit to both parties. This is not the same as a "smart contract" which is just a program.

Re: Coinbase issued Wells notice by SEC

#296

Post by HWR_14 »

unicornmama wrote: post #187
HWR_14 wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand (1) and (3) seems somewhat self-explanatory (although the quotes around "solely" give me pause.) But I don't understand "common enterprise" at all.

The term "common enterprise" refers to the pooling of resources from multiple investors, who are united in their pursuit of a common goal or objective. So hyperbole above is false, real estate, in the simple sense, isn't regulated by the SEC.

Real estate isn't. Investing in an LLC with some friends that buys an LLC is then a common enterprise. And if you are a hands off investor, then it's the shares are a security.

Re: Coinbase issued Wells notice by SEC

#297

Post by detrites »

SilverBirch wrote: post #271
detrites wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The definition of what "finance" is seems somewhat arbitrary doesn't it? Person A: spends $1k per year on lottery tickets and doesn't win anything. Person B: puts $1k into BTC at the years high and sells at the bottom getting back $200. Both people had the goal of making a double percentage return. One had an arguably significantly higher chance of doing that. One person was able to buy their lottery tickets at the c…

If you're going to attack the regulations, at least address what the regulations are there for. The regulations are very very simple, it provides a baseline to ensure that people understand what they're investing in. That's it! That's what the regulation is there for. When someone buys clothes or a lottery ticket they know exactly what they're getting - and lotteries are regulated to ensure they operate the way peopl…

That's so inaccurate.

What part of the SEC siphoning millions of dollars of customer-created profits out of crypto companies, and then letting them continue on doing business almost exactly the same as before has anything to do with educating people about anything?

What has NY's extensive restrictions on crypto business versus other states have to do with educating people about what crypto is?

And when someone buys a lottery ticket, or gambles at a casino, I can guarantee you they almost certainly have zero idea what they're buying - or they would't buy it. How's this "education" working out there?

There may well be laws around counterfeit clothes, but are there laws around selling two identical sweaters, possibly even made in the same factory in China, but one costs 100x the other one because one was "designed" by a particular brand?

Where's education and regulation on that one? People are being duped in their millions into paying hand over fist for disgustingly overpriced clothes and I don't see anyone "protecting" them.

Re: Coinbase issued Wells notice by SEC

#298

Post by RC_ITR »

humanizersequel wrote: post #288
RC_ITR wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait, don't play fast and loose here. I defined a loan. because you said: >The bank is quite literally writing multiple loans. I was establishing that Coinbase is also making loans. Then , I said >Coinbase is doing the work of abstracting that process into a single instrument (Coinbase earn)? Because that’s securitization. Because that (pooling multiple loans and sharing the proceeds of those multiple loans with lend…

>I was establishing that Coinbase is also making loans. As far as I understand, you are incorrect. Coinbase is not making loans, at least not in the context of Coinbase Earn. Happy to be corrected here.

I'm unclear how taking one person's currency (let's say Solana) and giving it to a different person/validator (who needs it to fulfill the requirements of a validator on that blockchain), who then puts it at risk (e.g., slashing risk), to earn a return (i.e. rewards) is at all different from a loan.

It's like if the bank gave my currency (USD), to a different business owner (who needs it to run their business), who then puts it at risk (e.g., bankruptcy risk), to earn a return (i.e. profits).

I really don't see what the line is here. Could you explain?

Re: Coinbase issued Wells notice by SEC

#299

Post by RC_ITR »

d110af5ccf wrote: post #65
RC_ITR wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>- Coinbase's position is that they are simply providing a technical service to their customers to do something that their customer's could do themselves. Sure, I could write multiple mortgages and roll them up into an MBS myself too, isn't the bank just doing the technical work there too?

When it comes to staking, who is being lent to? It doesn't seem like a loan to me at all.

Validators. It's being lent to validators.

Do you not know the mechanics of staking?

If so: https://solana.com/staking

Re: Coinbase issued Wells notice by SEC

#300

Post by humanizersequel »

RC_ITR wrote: post #298
humanizersequel wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I was establishing that Coinbase is also making loans. As far as I understand, you are incorrect. Coinbase is not making loans, at least not in the context of Coinbase Earn. Happy to be corrected here.

I'm unclear how taking one person's currency (let's say Solana) and giving it to a different person/validator (who needs it to fulfill the requirements of a validator on that blockchain), who then puts it at risk (e.g., slashing risk), to earn a return (i.e. rewards) is at all different from a loan. It's like if the bank gave my currency (USD), to a different business owner (who needs it to run their business), who t…

For the record, I'm most familiar with Ethereum and am reasoning from there, Solana may be different.

>It's like if the bank gave my currency (USD), to a different business owner (who needs it to run their business), who then puts it at risk (e.g., bankruptcy risk), to earn a return (i.e. profits).

Who is the "different business owner" in this case? Coinbase isn't giving my coins (rhetorically, I do not use Coinbase Earn or own any significant amount of blockchain assets) to anyone, they're interacting with a decentralized protocol on my behalf.

The risk profile also isn't exactly comparable, as in your example the bankruptcy and the potential profits are directly linked, while slashing is a punitive measure imposed by the protocol to punish bad behavior. The risk is that Coinbase mismanages their validators, but that's an error in service not in investment. More like a package getting lost in the mail than a business going bankrupt.

Post reply on HN