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

61–70 of 282 posts

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

#61

Post by notahacker »

kibwen wrote: post #46
shmageggy wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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-...

There's also Venezuela, a rare example of the hyperinflationary failed state cryptolibertarians insist their project is designed to combat, launching its own sort of cryptocurrency project as a way to get more dollars from foreign suckers so it can continue to import the stuff its leadership wants.

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

#62

Post by hackcasual »

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".

Securities are well defined, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Securities_Exchange_Act_of_193...

Really anything that gains value soley due to being promoted would be considered a security SEC v. WJ Howey Co:

> [a]n investment contract for purposes of the Securities Act means a contract, transaction or scheme whereby a person invests his money in a common enterprise and is led to expect profits solely from the efforts of the promoter or a third party.

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

#63

Post by crypt1d »

even if SEC comes raining down hell on exchanges, it will not bring any value on the long term. Decentralized exchanges are popping up like flies, each new one being more close to the "fully decentralized" concept (see idex, etherdelta, radarrelay, anything 0x related, etc).

It is very clear to me that SEC has no idea how any of this works under the hood and does not understand in which way the crypto ecosystem is headed. I feel like they ought to work more tightly with the industry's thinkers in order to create some more meaningful guidelines.

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

#64

Post by lmkg »

trophycase wrote: post #37
g09980 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

May be more likely due to the Binance "hack." http://markets.businessinsider.com/currencies/news/bitcoin-p... Edited for clarity.

Binance wasn't hacked. A bunch of idiots gave their API keys to third party bots. The owner of the bots then hijacked their accounts for profit

That's not a very sophisticated hack, but it's technically a type of hacking. In the same way that if you leave your keys unlocked in your running car overnight and someone gets in an drives away with it, that's still theft.

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

#65

Post by qbrass »

dragonwriter wrote: post #32
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?

They explicitly note that the law requires anything that is an exchange for trading things that meet the legal definition of a security must either (1) meet the requirements for and register as a national securities exchange or, (2) qualify for and secure an exemption under one of the existing legal exemptions from the registration requirement. They note that they are particularly concerned about customers mistaking…

(3) operate outside of the US.

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

#66

Post by nsxwolf »

lagadu wrote: post #56
Edmond wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 wi…

"money" is a representation of value that is recognised as such by a group of people. If a few people decide that a bunch of stones are now money[0] (in other words, represents value), should they be arrested? Similarly, when a group does the same not to stones but to seashells [1] or salt are they committing securities fraud? Someone decides to do the same for a few hashes on the internet and suddenly they can't? Wh…

Is it really money if nobody's using it like money? When people started using sea shells as money, they were buying stuff with it, not just speculating about its value using some other currency.

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

#67

Post by cal5k »

jeffreyrogers wrote: post #53
LAMike wrote: post #51

What will the SEC do when 0x decentralized exchanges pop up? There are already a dozen in development... pure p2p trading from a hardware wallet... https://0xproject.com/

You have to convert USD to some cryptocurrency at some point, and vice-versa, so that's what they'll regulate.

Yup. It's really quite simple - focus on the USD on-ramps and off-ramps.

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

#68

Post by hesdeadjim »

jeffreyrogers wrote: post #53
LAMike wrote: post #51

What will the SEC do when 0x decentralized exchanges pop up? There are already a dozen in development... pure p2p trading from a hardware wallet... https://0xproject.com/

You have to convert USD to some cryptocurrency at some point, and vice-versa, so that's what they'll regulate.

Yea and the IRS will be quite curious about your transaction history when you do.

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

#70

Post by Edmond »

lagadu wrote: post #56
Edmond wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 wi…

"money" is a representation of value that is recognised as such by a group of people. If a few people decide that a bunch of stones are now money[0] (in other words, represents value), should they be arrested? Similarly, when a group does the same not to stones but to seashells [1] or salt are they committing securities fraud? Someone decides to do the same for a few hashes on the internet and suddenly they can't? Wh…

The problem with these analogous argument about what money means fails to account for the implicit contract that we all sign as members of a society. If you buy your own island like Sir Richard Branson then by all means do what you please.

Legal tender is perhaps the most important corner stone of a modern nation state, if an entrepreneur can invent their own money and subsume the one issued by a government then you don't have a government. I for one prefer having a government.

This is not a trivial issue as cryptocurrency proponents seem to think it is.

Post reply on HN