91–100 of 282 posts
I'm flabbergasted by how much disinformation is infecting this threat. If you look at the list of legal actions the SEC has pursued at the bottom of the article, they are all flagrant violations of securities law and clearly unethical practices. For example, in "SEC v. Jon E. Montroll and Bitfunder", the individual in question was accepting "investments" in his exchange that were clearly securities (probably fitting…
For instance, the SEC threatened to prosecute the DAO [1], which was certainly not a "clear unethical practice", or "flagrant violation" of securities law -- just a bunch of people voluntarily putting their money into a pool to vote on what to do with it. They could even withdraw their money at any time.
[1] https://www.sec.gov/litigation/investreport/34-81207.pdf
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> who have provided less than zero benefit or service to our society Was following your argument up to that point. Making such a value judgment requires, in my opinion, a lot more data and deep analysis. Cryptocurrencies have the potential of loosening the grasp of oppressive regimes over their people. And it takes those other investors for the process to function. But, the reality and therefore data is needed to jud…
The burden of proof is on the new product, not the current society. I don't think he needs "data and deep analysis", that work needs to be done by the people trying to convince you cryptocurrencies are the future. When the status quo is disrupted, it's perfectly reasonable to assume that it's a passing fad or won't work out. A product or asset, especially a radical step like cryptocurrencies, succeeding and being val…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Cryptocurrencies have the potential of loosening the grasp of oppressive regimes over their people. How exactly would that work?!
by allowing u to transact wealth without the control and oversight of the oppressive regime.
$65,000 worth of gold is the size of an iPhone X.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Of course they would have laughed in their face. Do you see Nasdaq trying to list Dogecoin? There is no ambiguity or uncertainty here - there is a big problem and they're trying to reign it in with gloved hands before it becomes one and it turns into a big economic mess that the government will have to foot the bill to eventually clean up. This site likes to complain about wealthy inequality - common people like your…
>>they're trying to reign it in with gloved hands before it becomes one and it turns into a big economic mess that the government will have to foot the bill to eventually clean up. The government has no obligation to clean up anything. Claiming otherwise is just an excuse to prohibit people from investing into high-risk assets. >>common people like your grandparents and uninformed but good hearted relatives are provi…
And yet, when millions of individual investors lose more than they can afford that's often what must happen to preserve the peace. If Bitcoin went to $100 today, at the very least we'd see a massive hit to unemployment and disability rolls.
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 think the government won't notice if you buy a lambo and you can't afford it with valid income?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yup. It's really quite simple - focus on the USD on-ramps and off-ramps.
It's effectively the only way to do it but the way around it is fairly simple: use a bank account on another country, one that is OK with crypto along with non-US based exchanges.
Unless you're pushing tens or hundreds of millions of dollars around, they'll probably tell you to go pound sand.
I'm flabbergasted by how much disinformation is infecting this threat. If you look at the list of legal actions the SEC has pursued at the bottom of the article, they are all flagrant violations of securities law and clearly unethical practices. For example, in "SEC v. Jon E. Montroll and Bitfunder", the individual in question was accepting "investments" in his exchange that were clearly securities (probably fitting…
That list at the bottom is not exhaustive! It's just a few enforcement actions that the SEC wants you to read. They also do worse things. For instance, the SEC threatened to prosecute the DAO [1], which was certainly not a "clear unethical practice", or "flagrant violation" of securities law -- just a bunch of people voluntarily putting their money into a pool to vote on what to do with it. They could even withdraw t…
I mean... it sounds to me like they did their due diligence. The PDF contains an in-depth look at how existing securities law intersects with what this group was doing. That's exactly what the SEC is supposed to do.
DAOs are new and unfamiliar. They looked at what was going on and decided not to pursue further action. That seems quite reasonable to me.
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".
1. Someone invests their money
2. In a common enterprise
3. With the expectation of profits from efforts of a third party
As an example of how the SEC interprets these three prongs in application to cryptocurrencies, read their statement on the DAO: https://www.sec.gov/litigation/investreport/34-81207.pdf
If the SEC takes enforcement action against a token, the case would go to the courts, and then the courts would be responsible for deciding if the SEC's interpretation of the Howey Test is valid or not.