Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Coinbase issued Wells notice by SEC

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 327 posts

Re: Coinbase issued Wells notice by SEC

#81

Post by gamblor956 »

cududa wrote: post #30
stickfigure wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it's so clear to you, maybe you can answer the question?

I’m not an expert or a lawyer but it seems pretty clear. Going by what the SEC has literally told them: Coinbase taking money from depositors, loaning it out, and giving the depositors interest from the loan, is a security product. Page 1 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/COMPS-1885/pdf/COMPS-188... It… really doesn’t seem complicated. The SEC told Coinbase they’d be in viola…

The issue is not that Coinbase is "taking money" and loaning the money out; it is that Coinbase is taking things that the SEC has decided are securities and loaning those out.

Notably, the one crypto that the SEC guidance has said is not a security, i.e., Bitcoin, is missing from the list of coins available for Coinbase Earn.

Re: Coinbase issued Wells notice by SEC

#82

Post by TylerE »

thepasswordis wrote: post #72
TylerE wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or coin base could actually hire and listen to them like a business trying to operate legitimately and honestly. Instead it’s the usual crypto playbook of “move fast and break things” and then play dumb.

Do you have any evidence to back this up? It seems like coinbase has been trying to work with the SEC since the very beginning. Being 100% legit is kindof their whole schtick.

The SEC told them last year that staking was a security and now they’re being all surprisedpikachu and pretending they don’t know what this is about.

Re: Coinbase issued Wells notice by SEC

#83

Post by Mistletoe »

bardworx wrote: post #37
onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is Bitcoin not a security but if I fork Bitcoin it is a security?

Predominantly, from my understanding, it’s because: 1. Bitcoin was classified as “currency” by Clayton. 2. It’s the closest to being decentralized so no “organization will benefit from the work of others”. 3. Growth of Bitcoin wasn’t initially speculative but as a use of currency, which is different from whatever token you fork as its goal would be for speculative trading, failing the Howey test.

Clayton said the same about Ethereum.

https://www.coindesk.com/markets/2019/03/12/sec-chair-clayto...

Re: Coinbase issued Wells notice by SEC

#85

Post by MacsHeadroom »

onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #22
overthrow wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep, Gensler has outright said that “everything else other than bitcoin is a security.”[1] There's no chance Coinbase isn't aware of this. I don't know what they hope to accomplish by pretending otherwise. [1]: https://cryptoslate.com/sec-chair-gensler-confirms-everythin...

Why is Bitcoin not a security but if I fork Bitcoin it is a security?

The other reply to you is wrong. The answer is because a chain whose direction is controlled by a single entity in practice is probably a security as its value depends on the performance of that entity. Bitcoin's value as an asset is not contingent on some other party with control of it, unlike say Ethereum, Binance Coin, etc.

Dogecoin is arguably in the same category as Bitcoin. So forks don't have to be securities. They do have to be actually decentralized, as in one entity does not decide which fork is the true fork (like with Ethereum, Bitcoin Satoshi Vision, etc).

Re: Coinbase issued Wells notice by SEC

#87

Post by choma1 »

iramiller wrote: post #64
Alex3917 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Well, it is something of a he said/she said between Coinbase and the SEC. Not really. The law has been exactly the same since the 1940s. Apparently though Coinbase has decided to go all in on SBF's strategy of pretending to be too dumb to understand the law. Coinbase arguing that they should be allowed to sell illegal unregistered securities because the SEC said they could sell securities is like CVS arguing that s…

Well the SEC certainly has one point of view. Unfortunately the CFTC has another view and they both can’t be right so which part of the federal governance applies here? https://www.cftc.gov/digitalassets/index.htm This ambiguity is why clarity is needed. In the famous words of Matt Levine everything is securities fraud. It seems obvious that some legal clarity is actually required here.

Why can't they both be right? Futures aren't securities except in certain cases, and if bitcoin is a currency then bitcoin futures wouldn't be under SEC jurisdiction.

Re: Coinbase issued Wells notice by SEC

#88

Post by headsoup »

aikinai wrote: post #78
TylerE wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or coin base could actually hire and listen to them like a business trying to operate legitimately and honestly. Instead it’s the usual crypto playbook of “move fast and break things” and then play dumb.

You're being intentionally disingenuous. Coinbase's entire value is tied to them being the safest, most legal crypto brokerage.

If they're trying to be that then they probably shouldn't be offering shitcoins like "I will poop it NFT" or "PonziCOIN".
Post reply on HN