311–320 of 489 posts
Coincidentally, Rolling Stone just published a profile on the founder: Crypto’s Richest Man Is Waiting Out the Chaos https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/changp...
> In one instance, the Binance chief compliance officer messaged a colleague that, “[w]e are operating as a fking unlicensed securities exchange in the USA bro.” Source: https://twitter.com/JohnReedStark/status/1665748594421297152 This is a legendary quote from the filing.
Is you takin' notes on a criminal fuckin' conspiracy? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ly82nabRRYc&t=80 Robert Rules would be proud
He'll likely get a slap on the wrist with some fines.
Doesn't look like anybody is going to jail.
We shall see how things shake out. Would get intriguing if the jaws of FINCEN suddenly opened up.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The burden is on SEC to prove these allegations. If they took YOU to court, calling YOU a thief, you would expect the burden to be on them, right?
>The burden is on SEC to prove these allegations. If they took YOU to court, calling YOU a thief, you would expect the burden to be on them, right? WELL, the former CEOs of Binance.US who quit after realizing CZ was the real CEO against what was supposed to be the real setup seem to have testified to the SEC...along with hints the SEC has a big pile of private messages.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Easy agree. There are all kinds of things you can do with money that should be (and are) illegal. Hiring a hitman should be illegal. Buying slaves should be illegal. Bribing the court system should be illegal. This is not to say that every restrictions is justified, but taking the stance that no restrictions are justified is advocating anarchy.
Is the implication that the victims of hits and slavery are consenting?
In which case, sure. Hence why the government regulates transactions.
Earlier today, I talked to people who are reformed criminals who have been thrown in Jail by the SEC and know its inner workings fairly well. He'll likely get a slap on the wrist with some fines. Doesn't look like anybody is going to jail. We shall see how things shake out. Would get intriguing if the jaws of FINCEN suddenly opened up.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just because the current system sucks doesn't mean a replacement will be better. Its the responsibility of people advocating for a replacement system to explain and demonstrate why it will be better. Banks suck. But that doesn't mean crypto companies should have free reign to do whatever they want for the sake of "innovation."
> that doesn't mean crypto companies should have free reign to do whatever they want for the sake of "innovation." As a company, you're allowed to do anything that is not illegal. Law is not a whitelist of what you're allowed to do, it's a blacklist of what you're not allowed to do. And while it makes sense to create laws that protect consumers, it doesn't make sense to create laws that blanket ban experimentation wi…
This is not new technology, it's moving the money around under the guise of new technology.
And all the same crypto-bros are very proud of the valuation of the company they are at the helm of ....and they always tout it expressed in US Dollars...not bitcoin, not ethereum, not Binance coin.
And the same crypto-bros are very proud of their net worth expressed in US Dollars
While you are here writing "let them experiment with technology dude" they concern with technology is zero, it's all about driving up the valuation and driving up the net worth (always expressed in US Dollars)
The SEC and CFTC missed FTX being the worlds largest fraud. Now they are desperately going after Binance for... being above board but not getting the right license, during a period when no licenses were offered (and still aren't). At what point is this just pointless bullshit, let exchanges register, regulate them like other exchanges (segregated funds etc) and fuck off already.
Uh there’s usually an important reason licenses aren’t offered for something that might otherwise require a license…and it’s not an excuse to do that thing anyway.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd give some benefit of the doubt like perhaps it was taken out of context, but... "bro"!? roflmao at the brazenness
I would love to know what context could surround the sentence "we are operating as a fking unlicensed securities exchange in the USA" that makes it not an admission that they are operating as an unlicensed securities exchange in the USA.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Thank goodness that criminals aren't very smart No, the criminals are extremely smart. Its just that these were amateurs who didnt know that in Anglosaxon common law, you have to avoid being honest about anything and even deny any wrongdoing even if you get caught the act of murdering someone. Then you can exercise plausible deniability, claim incompetence or mental incapacity and you can negotiate your sentence. A…
> these were amateurs who didnt know that in Anglosaxon common law, you have to avoid being honest about anything and even deny any wrongdoing even if you get caught the act of murdering someone Ignoring the "Anglosaxon" buzzword here, none of this is unique conceptually to US law, or foreign conceptually to anyone who's told a lie when younger. It's instinctual for many when they know they've done something wrong. T…
The 'Anglosaxon' term is a long-standing political science, history and diplomacy term. Its not something that can be ignored, especially because...
> none of this is unique conceptually to US law
... it is.
The common law derives from the medieval !Anglosaxon! feudal law, which is based on contracts, agreements, negotiations and precedents. It can be 'interpreted' by the judge, who takes on the role of the feudal lord of the earlier times, and he or she can 'interpret' the law or precedents. The persecution or the defendant can negotiate any outcome. This trait of the common law system causes all the parties to open the 'bargain' from the maximum bets that they can imagine, assuming that it will be 'negotiated down' eventually. Which obligates the need for lying and denying that was mentioned earlier - if you deny any kind of wrongdoing even when caught red handed, you have a better chance of negotiating something better than if you were honest. The only sizable countries that use this law system are the UK, the US, Canada, Australia, and NZ if you count as sizable. Along with a number of smaller island states.
The ENTIRE rest of the world uses the civil law system that descended from the Napoleonic law, which descended in turn from the French Revolutionary principles. It does not rely on agreements, contracts, negotiations or precedents. It cannot be 'interpreted' The law is made by the democratic parliamentary authority and it clearly outlines crimes and punishments and there can be no negotiation made. Even the reductions in sentencing or the modifications that can be done to the final decision on anything are clearly outlined. Including the benefits that confessing a crime brings. Whereas lying is penalized further. There is no 'negotiation' that can be done in any way. That is why civil law encourages confessions and telling the truth in contrast to the common law which allows you to negotiate.
Which is also the reason why the lawyers get upper middle class salaries and income in entire rest of the world but make obscene, irrational income in the US - when the legal system allows outrageous decisions, reparations, sentences that can only be negotiated through professional lying, posturing, playing down or up, personal relations in between the lawyers, prosecutors and judges, it encourages the mess that one can see in the US to happen.
In Europe, judges and lawyers and prosecutors function more like clerks - the law is clear and solid. The rewards and punishments are the same. Has someone done what he or she shouldnt have done? Yes. What is the penalty for this? This particular thing. That is applied. There is no 'negotiation' anywhere in the process.
This difference not only makes the Anglosaxon legal system quite different from entire rest of the world, but it also causes the social, economic and political life in the Angloamerican world and the rest of the world to be very different. A corporation can get away with destroying the environment or killing hundreds of thousands people with their product or the new drug. Even if they know beforehand what will happen and start to repress information and bribe experts to lie on their behalf to sell their product. Because, when they get caught, what will happen will be an eventual negotiation. In the rest of the world that does not happen - there is no way to negotiate down any sentence that may befall on your corporation, but most importantly, you, the perpetrator...