541–550 of 557 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because in this case the agency that enforces the rules is also charged with creating them, and how the rules this agency creates apply to novel instruments with no centralized issuer, centralized operator or investment contract, is not at all clear.
No, Congress creates the rules. The SEC decides how to enforce them. A court then decides who's right in any given action.
I like reasoned critiques of crypto. Heck, I think many crypto actors are scammers and should be punished. However, a lot of crypto is legit and this piece reeks of bias. Some examples: - comparison with heroin - wtf? To extend that ridiculous analogy, it would be akin to FDA approving heroin based products (similar to how SEC approved Bitcoin ETF in 2021) and then going after heroin. What message is SEC trying to de…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Owning the book does not promise returns.
How about, say, Pokemon cards? Lots of people buy them with an expectation of profit, which relies on the efforts of The Pokemon Company (among others) to continue to grow the player base.
I also wonder how does it work with one-of-a-kind collectibles, such as old letters written by famous people, paintings, rare/unique coins, ..., and NFTs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A better example is HMRC, the tax authority, in the UK. They won't tell you if your tax avoidance scheme is legal or not, but they will fine you or take you to court if they later decide it is not.
In the US, taxes is one of the cases where you can actually get a letter from the IRS saying "yeah this is probably okay": https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/plr.asp
However:
> Even with a favorable ruling, a taxpayer has no absolute guarantee of the tax consequences, since the IRS can modify or revoke a previously issued private letter ruling if it is later determined that the ruling was incorrect or inconsistent with the current position of the IRS.
So even with a PLR, you have no guarantees.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Not according to the government, and they're the horse's mouth on this. You seem to be referencing some specific statement that you didn't provide. I'm guessing that you are confused about the phrase "independent agency". Or possibly you're remembering cases like Lucia v. SEC where certain SEC staff were (unsuccessfully) challenged as not conforming with the Article II appointments clause. The insulation of these s…
The SEC is an agency of the federal government. It is not a part of any particular branch, really. The executive branch cannot just demand that the SEC engage in any particular action, unlike agencies that are formally part of the executive branch. The legislative branch can demand particular action from the SEC, albeit indirectly, by altering, passing, or revoking the laws that the SEC is tasked with enforcing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They are not required to do so, no. However, abusing retroactive enforcement does create a pretty clear case that the SEC is not interested in forming a regulatory framework for the exchange of digital commodities - instead preferring to import securities frameworks and punishing participants in the nascent industry. Why should anyone reasonably believe the SEC has intentions to allow crypto to exist, and that coinag…
> However, abusing retroactive enforcement Statements like this create a pretty clear case that you haven’t read or shown any real interest in the SEC investigation and litigation related to crypto.
The particular product under investigation and or litigation was around for 3 or 4 years, and while the SEC is free to reclassify financial products at will - the fact that they did so and are now attempting to extract company-destroying damages indicates that they did not particularly care.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It suggests bad faith to ask why the SEC didn't crack down earlier. Sure, it was politics, but it seems entirely understandable. We all know that before the crypto bust, a lot of people would've been starting a witch hunt if the SEC had tried to enforce the law. Congress, for starters. Gensler is being opportunistic now because that's the reality they have to work with. The wealthy and powerful in this country take i…
Huh??? The SEC decides when, what, and for whom it enforces rules?
A library can't have every book in the world. This doesn't mean that not selecting a book is exactly the same as "banning" it. It does mean the issue is nuanced.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is extremely common practice in our system. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosecutorial_discretion
Kinda violates "justice is blind" trope, no?
Would you agree that each library can't have every book ever written, and do you think there is a distinction between not selecting a book and "banning" it?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It suggests bad faith to ask why the SEC didn't crack down earlier. Sure, it was politics, but it seems entirely understandable. We all know that before the crypto bust, a lot of people would've been starting a witch hunt if the SEC had tried to enforce the law. Congress, for starters. Gensler is being opportunistic now because that's the reality they have to work with. The wealthy and powerful in this country take i…
>>The wealthy and powerful in this country take it on themselves to personally ruin public servants who get in their way sometimes. Oh poor Gensler, former banker turned regulator worth $100 million, getting push back when he robs people of their right to invest their money how they want.