91–100 of 215 posts
I am thinking a short position in bitcoin is in my near future. I am not saying bitcoin is doomed to fail but I am pretty confident this shit coin crazy is going to hit the fan sooner or later and it's going to drag the "legitimate" crypto currencies down.
I am thinking a short position in bitcoin is in my near future. I am not saying bitcoin is doomed to fail but I am pretty confident this shit coin crazy is going to hit the fan sooner or later and it's going to drag the "legitimate" crypto currencies down.
Heads up. Bitcoin is likely to be forever deflationary until it fails. There are no capital controls to increase the supply which means as people lose their wallets it becomes more and more constrained. I agree that it's a trash fire that will never be adopted as a regular currency, but its value could go up for a very long time like any collectible.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you read the Securities Act of 1933 there are TONS of ways to get around SEC rules. And as such I think your intrastate offering idea is a red herring, but I'll entertain you: Did you know that anything that is super obviously a security can be completely exempt if it matures or expires in less than 270 days? Its written right there. Turns out there is a huge market called "commercial paper" that takes advantage o…
> Did you know that anything that is super obviously a security can be completely exempt if it matures or expires in less than 270 days? The United States is a common law country [1]. Implicitly stapled to the law are rulings and SEC rules. TL; DR There are more requirements to the commercial paper exemption than just the 270-day tenor. That said, you are generally correct–there are lots of exemptions to registration…
> Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. This is not legal nor securities advice.
Look, we know. Only armchair financial enthusiasts use those disclaimers, and you've made it painfully obvious and its a bit contrived.
Federal Reserve regulation D is not the SEC's regulation D that you talked about.
Regulation D is not an applicable exemption, neither is Filecoin's use of it, because the secondary markets where people are inevitably going to trade them have to be registered broker dealers to legally trade things that admit they are securities. Unlike private equity, there is nothing that functionally prevents people from trading cryptographic tokens, so it is better for now that the tokens themselves make sure they are NOT securities, not just 'exempt securities'. No matter what Filecoin did, there is still a major infrastructure problem that threatens to hamper all liquidity in this space, unless tokens are structured as products and distinct from the securities market.
We've been here before. The SEC tried to regulate commodities. The SEC tried to regulate commodities futures and commodities options. The SEC thought they were covered under the wording of the Securities Act of 1933 but ultimately that just made no fucking sense for commerce. So the people of this country and the representatives thereof created the CFTC.
And yet again, the SEC's frameworks makes no sense for this market, where assets can functionally be like a security, like a commodity, and like a currency simultaenously.
A new framework isn't out of the question. For new services and sales that happen to use cryptographic tokens, being unambiguously a product isn't out of the question. Being unambiguously a security isn't out of the question.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Off-topic, sorry: Levine gets a lot of praise around here, and he does have a great talent for breaking down complex finance topics so that they're easy to understand and often entertaining to read about. That being said, sometimes he is awfully sanguine about bank misconduct and crimes. Edit: from the article: "A bank that keeps very careful track of how much money it has, and who owes it money and whom it owes mone…
That's an unfair quote, taken completely out of context. His articles frequently cover fraud and illegality in the financial markets, and he's never in favour of it. The quote in question was pointing out how bad the latest Wells Fargo scandal is. A bank that can't keep track of money is in serious trouble and is woefully incompetent. The banks ripping off customers but accounting for the profits are evil, but at lea…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You can short btc on several platforms, including Bitfinex There is a horrible counterparty correlation in this trade. If Bitcoin goes up, you're out your short and lose lots of money. If Bitcoin crashes, the exchange runs into problems and you probably lose your original investment. Balanced against those is the limited profit potential from a marginal drop in the price of Bitcoin.
Why would the exchange run into problems in such a case? Some are certainly more reputable than others, but for the most part there's no reason to worry there.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Did you know that anything that is super obviously a security can be completely exempt if it matures or expires in less than 270 days? The United States is a common law country [1]. Implicitly stapled to the law are rulings and SEC rules. TL; DR There are more requirements to the commercial paper exemption than just the 270-day tenor. That said, you are generally correct–there are lots of exemptions to registration…
> [1] https://www.federalreserve.gov/bankinforeg/regdcg.htm > Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. This is not legal nor securities advice. Look, we know. Only armchair financial enthusiasts use those disclaimers, and you've made it painfully obvious and its a bit contrived. Federal Reserve regulation D is not the SEC's regulation D that you talked about. Regulation D is not an applicable exemption, neither is Filecoin's u…
Filecoin appears to be using Rule 506(c) of Regulation D, a § 4(a)(2) exemption. Also, you don't need to be a broker-dealer to issue, buy or sell unregistered securities. (You do need to be one if you're doing those things with others' securities [1].)
> The SEC tried to regulate commodities.
Commodities-trading regulation predates the SEC by over a decade [2]. Every time securities law were written, commodities laws were rewritten [3][4] to explicitly carve commodities out from securities laws. Both agencies compete in the swaps market, due to their shared jurisdiction over securities-based swaps [5][6], but there are deeper reasons behind the CFTC's independence than it making "no fucking sense for commerce." (The short answer has to do with geography and the competing power centers of New York and Chicago.)
> A new framework isn't out of the question
I agree. But it will probably take an act of Congress to do this. In the meantime, some promoters are violating the law.
[1] https://www.sec.gov/reportspubs/investor-publications/divisi...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grain_Futures_Act
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodity_Exchange_Act
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodity_Futures_Trading_Comm...
[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodity_Futures_Modernizatio...
[6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodd–Frank_Wall_Street_Reform_...
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. This is not legal nor securities advice.
I am thinking a short position in bitcoin is in my near future. I am not saying bitcoin is doomed to fail but I am pretty confident this shit coin crazy is going to hit the fan sooner or later and it's going to drag the "legitimate" crypto currencies down.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It looks like around 90% of ICOs are securities and "restructuring" them to not be securities would probably make them unprofitable and thus pointless. The only way for most ICOs to comply with SEC regulations is to not exist.
while simultaneously reaffirming that regulated broker-dealers can trade securitized tokens that are properly registered bringing trillions of dollars into the crypto space overnight when TD Ameritrade and ETrade starts trading these.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Bizarrely, some of these non-American ICOs still advertise in the US. I can't remember the exact ICOs, but some have paid for billboard ads, taxi ads, and so on. I suspect that the 'no Americans' is just a tickbox that they know is easy for their investors to ignore.
Yeah, EOS had both a Times Square ad and a no US investor policy: https://twitter.com/jeffscottward/status/879434713114578946
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you're launching one of these, you don't really need investment. You just make sure you own the first batch of currency and get rich if it takes off. If you need investment then you don't really believe in your own stuff do you? Ponzi Ponzi Ponzi.
That guy on TV keeps telling me how awesome owning gold is... it is so awesome he wants to sell me his...