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

41–50 of 282 posts

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

#41

Post by wincy »

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…

The burden of proof is on the new product, not the current society. I don't think he needs "data and deep analysis", that work needs to be done by the people trying to convince you cryptocurrencies are the future.

When the status quo is disrupted, it's perfectly reasonable to assume that it's a passing fad or won't work out. A product or asset, especially a radical step like cryptocurrencies, succeeding and being valuable is the exception, not the rule.

There's a reason accredited investors exist, because they're expected to know better.

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

#42

Post by vkou »

not_that_noob wrote: post #19
ivraatiems wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you notice the list of enforcement actions at the bottom of the page? The SEC can't just blanket C&D every single crypto exchange; they have to go one at a time. This is a clear message that they're going to do just that, especially when coupled with all the enforcement they're doing.

Those are for Bitfunder and the like, where the issues are more about fraud than about the correct classification of coin offerings. There is no enforcement action against Coinbase for example. If the SEC was that confident in its position, then they would have gone after Coinbase, and we would have heard about it on CNBC first. This is a tacit admission from the SEC that they don't have much of a legal basis to stan…

Coinbase doesn't trade in ICOs.

Bitcoin is probably not a security. Something like tether or filecoin probably is.

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

#43

Post by aje403 »

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…

Good point. HODL to the moon, grandma!

For the record, the SEC won't ban cryptocurrency. They want technology (in general) to stay here and potentially evolve into something that can be useful and provide jobs and value someday, so you can still free oppressed nations, but you will need to cooperate with the American government if it's being done on our soil.

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

#44

Post by Edmond »

aje403 wrote: post #17
TallGuyShort wrote: post #8

So if some anonymous person invents cryptocurrencies, at what point are you supposed to be considered securities? If the first exchange had gone to SEC to register as a securities exchange, would the SEC not have laughed in their face? The headline itself really captures the ambiguity and uncertainty of all of this: "potentially unlawful".

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…

couldn't have said it better.

The very idea that a random citizen in a modern country can invent their own notion of money is beyond problematic so it is confounding that this whole thing has been allowed to mushroom into what it is today.

Proponents like to drag skeptics into crypto debates but that is far off the mark when it comes to the real implications of the current situation.

Some questions to ponder:

When will the government decide it is illegal to create your own money? will those who have already amassed fortunes (even imaginary) be allowed to keep it? And if so why would the citizenry tolerate such a situation?

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

#45

Post by atmosx »

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…

> Cryptocurrencies have the potential of loosening the grasp of oppressive regimes over their people.

How exactly would that work?!

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

#46

Post by kibwen »

shmageggy wrote: post #34
ballenf wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

I fail to see how crypto-speculators making large sums of USD has anything to do with oppressive regimes.

Though perhaps contrary to your parent commenter's point, the North Korean regime appears to be using Bitcoin speculation to circumvent international sanctions, making as much as $200 million last year ( which would be about 1.5% of its GDP, or 10% of its military budget): https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/03/05/north-korea-may-...

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

#48

Post by gjem97 »

TallGuyShort wrote: post #8

So if some anonymous person invents cryptocurrencies, at what point are you supposed to be considered securities? If the first exchange had gone to SEC to register as a securities exchange, would the SEC not have laughed in their face? The headline itself really captures the ambiguity and uncertainty of all of this: "potentially unlawful".

There is no requirement that regulators avoid catch-22 like situations. It would be unsurprising if the SEC had responded in such a situation with "Yes, they are likely securities, but no we don't care to elaborate, and we can't undertake approving your exchange because of (insert plausible but kinda lame reason here)."

You have very little in the way of recourse.

However if they determine that you're illegally selling those securities, you better believe that they can and will come after you, in the name of protecting the little guy.

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

#49

Post by empath75 »

whb07 wrote: post #20

From my untrained perspective it seems like they are warning against "the appearance of a regulated market". Therefore, all these markets should do is have a big banner at the top stating: "We are not regulated by the SEC and any activity here is not protected by any rules and regulations which might apply to a SEC registered company. Please be careful" Or am i crazy?

Yeah. You can’t just declare your business unregulated. That’s not how laws work.

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

#50

Post by diab0lic »

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…

I see the argument that cryptos reduce the grasp of oppressive regimes on here pretty frequently but the truth is that a) the null hypothesis (no effect) has yet to be rejected with any data and b) oppressive regimes are very good at eliminating or severely restricting internet access when it suits them.

A slight tangent -- you can't just take two options and say we don't have any data so we can't judge. We have a prior: most things do not have an effect in this case.

Post reply on HN