Per the comments in the thread, they didn't post the subpoena and people are wondering whether this is real.
Well-timed fleece for sure
SushiDAO served with subpoena by SEC
41–50 of 71 posts
Re: SushiDAO served with subpoena by SEC
#42lol get f*cked
Can you please not do this here? You may not owe sushi or DAOs better but you owe this community better if you're participating in it.
Re: SushiDAO served with subpoena by SEC
#43[flagged]
I think it's in really poor taste to compare regulators doing their job shutting down illegal activities and one of the most infamous pogroms, Kristallnacht.
"Don't feed egregious comments by replying; flag them instead."
a.k.a. please don't feed the trolls
Re: SushiDAO served with subpoena by SEC
#44Earlier quoted context omitted.
what is r/FlordiaMan material?
Florida has transparency laws which allow for every dumb thing ever done by a florida man to be published and become highly visible on a global scale. It gave the state certain reputation due to observation bias.
That's a myth.
Well, maybe it was true 30 years ago, but it is no longer.
The vast majority of US states have transparency laws no different from Florida.
https://granicus.com/blog/foia-101-public-record-laws-in-eac...
https://www.muckrock.com/place/
https://www.nfoic.org/state-freedom-of-information-laws/
https://www.rcfp.org/open-government-guide
Floridaman is a thing, but not because of Sunshine laws.
Floridaman reports are usually cheap-and-easy police blotter retreads for maximum clicks at minimal cost and practically every jurisdiction everywhere publishes their police blotter.
Re: SushiDAO served with subpoena by SEC
#45[flagged]
Could you please stop posting unsubstantive comments and flamebait? You've unfortunately been doing it repeatedly. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for.
If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
Re: SushiDAO served with subpoena by SEC
#46Honestly, I'm also flabbergasted when the guy is basically running an unregulated exchange that offers what are almost certainly unregistered securities[1] ( definitionally , the value of $SUSHI LP tokens goes up when people trade other projects' tokens, so the Howey Test is clearly violated) and freely chooses to live in the US. The SEC is shooting fish in a barrel. [1] https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/sushiswap…
> shooting fish in a barrel There's a sushi joke in there somewhere
Its rare for sushi to be grilled like this. But the SEC is going to make a go of it.
Re: SushiDAO served with subpoena by SEC
#47Funny that the founder can just submit to vote what is effectively “I need $3M USD and if that runs out additional $1M sums in perpetuity” with zero oversight on how it’s spent, outside of claiming it will be spent on legal costs.
That is about what would happen in a board meeting. And the final edit ($1m top-ups are limited to twice, then come back and ask for approval again) seems like a reasonable response. Presumably there is some audit trail on expenses after the fact?
Yeah that’s what I mean - boards and real companies have audits/etc. although if sushi is a c-Corp maybe they do need to submit documentation when they do taxes and such.
Re: SushiDAO served with subpoena by SEC
#48Honestly, I'm also flabbergasted when the guy is basically running an unregulated exchange that offers what are almost certainly unregistered securities[1] ( definitionally , the value of $SUSHI LP tokens goes up when people trade other projects' tokens, so the Howey Test is clearly violated) and freely chooses to live in the US. The SEC is shooting fish in a barrel. [1] https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/sushiswap…
But uni is also into irregular exchange. So, why are they not subpoenaed?
Re: SushiDAO served with subpoena by SEC
#49Funny that the founder can just submit to vote what is effectively “I need $3M USD and if that runs out additional $1M sums in perpetuity” with zero oversight on how it’s spent, outside of claiming it will be spent on legal costs.
Not sure if it's funny, but in a DAO often anyone can make a proposal (usually following a certain process and holding a small amount of thr governance token). They are calling for the token holders to give their opinion or approval for a transaction.
It will be funny if the vote reveals the founder has a majority of the tokens and can vote himself these funds from the DAO's treasury. But if the token is well distributed in the DAO and the community surrounding it, and the proposal passes the vote, I don't really see how it is funny. It is just how governance works in a DAO.
Personally, with the lack of details in this proposal I will vote against it, but at this stage it is most likely the kind of input the proposer is expecting, before the actual vote.
Re: SushiDAO served with subpoena by SEC
#50Just about everyone here seems to have a principaled position against DLT.
Also I think it should be mentioned that this is one of the first cases a relativley old and renowned DAO could be actually tried in a legal case with many possible implications. Also such a so called "technology neutral approach" to regulation has some flaws in itself. For example most people would say you can't really compare the web to mid 20th century phone lines and still a lot of laws are called something akin to "Communications act". That said I have not paid a lot of interest to Sushi, I finder other swaps better and I guess that 3 million dollars (to one person ?) are a kinda weird proposal.