[HN Gopher] Former Coinbase PM charged in cryptocurrency insider... ___________________________________________________________________ Former Coinbase PM charged in cryptocurrency insider trading tipping scheme Author : tempsy Score : 415 points Date : 2022-07-21 15:19 UTC (7 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.justice.gov) (TXT) w3m dump (www.justice.gov) | iryntyis3 wrote: | romellem wrote: | Wow, the indictment references [this tweet][1] that caused | Coinbase to investigate the matter and ultimately led the | defendant in being caught at the airport before trying to leave | the country. | | > On May 11, 2022, Coinbase's director of security operations | emailed ISHAN WAHI to inform him that he should appear for an in- | person meeting relating to Coinbase's asset listing process at | Coinbase's Seattle, Washington office on Monday, May 16, 2022. | ISHAN WAHI confirmed he would attend the meeting. | | > On the evening of Sunday, May 15, 2022, ISHAN WAHI purchased a | one-way flight to India that was scheduled to depart the next day | shortly before ISHAN WAHI was supposed to be interviewed by | Coinbase. [...] Prior to boarding the May 16, 2022 flight to | India, ISHAN WAHI was stopped by law enforcement and prevented | from leaving the country. | | [1]: https://twitter.com/cobie/status/1513874972552355846 | Mo3 wrote: | How did they manage to intercept him at the airport? Are there | lists for _suspected_ criminals? | smsm42 wrote: | There are "no fly" lists, and I presume there are lists of | "if this person shows up at the airport checkin, inform the | police" lists. Also, DHS has Passenger Name Record (PNR) for | everybody who flies internationally at least. It'd be trivial | to put a flag on it for a person, and then just meet him at | the gate. | paulpauper wrote: | often the feds will surveil someone for a long time and just | wait until they try to leave the country . it makes it much | easier than trying to do the arrest elsewhere. it's all | electronic . You buy a ticket, show your ID/passposrt, and | your info will go out. | acchow wrote: | So you should really drive to central america, I guess? | thehappypm wrote: | My dad always said, if shit hit the fan, he would go to | Brazil. Brazil isn't exactly lawless, but it's such a | mass of humanity and so many cultures blending together | that literally nobody would stick out like a sore thumb | there. | Mo3 wrote: | I met a guy living in Brazil once while I was staying at | a hotel for work, he said he moved there specifically | because he had enough of the governments reach into his | personal matters. | | Two days later, his (Brazilian) bank started to withhold | his (non-Brazilian) salary payments for money laundering | suspicions because he forgot to file one random document, | he was frantically trying to find a way to open a bank | account here in Europe, no one would let him with his | Brazilian residency, and he had to resort to asking his | wife for money. Another two days later, his lawyer told | him to get lost because the Brazilian tax office knocked | at his office door, he lost the preliminary court case to | get his (to begin with, legal) money back, was stranded | in Europe and they went to detain his wife. He couldn't | even open a cryptocurrency exchange account because not | even they want to deal with the Brazilian authorities and | the only ones operating in Brazil itself are on the | governments leash. | | It's not lawless at all. He also told me they have a | personal identification number like the US SSN, but that | it's much more widely used for almost anything, even if | you want to rent an apartment or go shopping (his words, | never verified it) and allows authorities to track their | every (mostly financial) step. He emphasised you better | have that number ready when you enter the country too. | smsm42 wrote: | They probably have computers on the outgoing checkpoint | too. Maybe walk across Rio Grande or something. Or just | go to Florida and swim for a really long time. | profmonocle wrote: | > They probably have computers on the outgoing checkpoint | too. | | Does the US have outgoing checkpoints on its land | borders? I thought you only dealt with the | Canadian/Mexican customs agents on your way out, and only | dealt with US CBP on your way back in. (I haven't crossed | a US land border since a road trip to Canada when I was a | kid, so I could be very wrong.) | rory wrote: | I've crossed three land borders to Canada in the past few | years and none had an outgoing checkpoint. | paulpauper wrote: | it was too late for him. | acchow wrote: | How can you stop someone driving to mexico? They can | drive to a border city and walk across without any | passport control. | paulpauper wrote: | It depends on the stage of the investigation. if he was | only a suspect then could he leave whenever he wanted. | However, if someone is already indicted but it's sealed, | then he would have been under watch without anywhere to | go. Or he could hve been stopped and brought before a | magistrate. HIs mistake was he waited too long, probably | should have left in april before the evidence came out, | not May. | jacquesm wrote: | His mistake was to make those trades. | otikik wrote: | No. Purchase a plane ticket first. Then leave by car. | biometry-woof wrote: | The irony here is that the linked Twitter account made his | money by coordinating pump and dumps back in the day, before he | rebranded into this entity. | perihelions wrote: | There was an HN thread about that tweet, at the time that it | was tweeted: | | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31012462 ( _" Insider | Trading at Coinbase (twitter.com/cobie)"_) (3 months ago, 333 | comments) | d--b wrote: | During which conversation a fairly large number of HN | commenters thought that crypto insider trading wasn't | illegal: | | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31012837 | closewith wrote: | That's a fantastic insight - thanks for the link. | hailwren wrote: | If you read the actual SEC filing, you'll note that they're | only filing for 7 of the alleged 25 coins that he traded. | [1] Even the SEC agrees that this was not insider trading | in all 25 instances. | | "Throughout the relevant period, Nikhil and Ramani | repeatedly traded ahead of Coinbase listing announcements, | trading in at least 25 tokens. At least seven of the | listing announcements described above involved crypto asset | securities" | | 1 - https://www.sec.gov/litigation/complaints/2022/comp- | pr2022-1... | iskander wrote: | Is there a list of all 25 somewhere? This could provide | some illumination on what SEC does and does not consider | a security. | tyre wrote: | For some nuance, though, partly this has to do with lack of | SEC enforcement on crypto as a security. My opinion then | would have been that this should be insider trading, crypto | should be classified as a security, and _also_ that I | wasn't sure the SEC would classify this as insider trading. | | Since the definition of insider trading is kind of, | "whatever the SEC enforces", it's possible to believe that | this is a security that was insider traded and also that | it's not "insider trading" in the only meaningful way (the | SEC way.) | game-of-throws wrote: | Yeah I was about to say something similar. Our existing | insider trading laws don't quite fit this situation, | which is why they're being charged with "wire fraud | conspiracy" instead of something more specific. | [deleted] | zionic wrote: | Wow, not that I would ever do anything like this... but if I | was accused of such a thing the last thing I would do is book a | flight for _tomorrow_. | paulpauper wrote: | There was no way they were going to let him leave the | country, no matter when he booked the flight. booking the | flight made it easier to arrest him. the meeting was set-up | by the feds to arrest him there instead, but he thought that | leaving the country would work, which it obv. didn't. | devmunchies wrote: | > There was no way they were going to let him leave the | country, no matter when he booked the flight | | whatever his friend did is working so far. still at large. | zionic wrote: | I mean I don't intend on ever being a fugitive lol, but do | they even check ID digitally when crossing the southern | border on foot? | kepler1 wrote: | Yeah, maybe book a flight for 1 hour from now and hope they | don't find out in time... | umeshunni wrote: | that wouldn't have given him time to pack 3 suitcases. | lowdest wrote: | If I've learned anything from reading espionage fiction | novels -- you book a flight for tomorrow and leave on the bus | _tonight_. | mandeepj wrote: | > the last thing I would do is book a flight for tomorrow. | | Maybe, that was his 'last thing' | koolba wrote: | Much better to drive across the border and _then_ book a | flight with a non-US airline. | walrus01 wrote: | He could've taken out cash from his local bank account, | turned off his phone, driven to San Ysidro and walked | through the public turnstile into Tijuana. And then tried | to get a flight from Mexico City to somewhere in south | asia. | | Would have been much better than going through the | US/Canada border which has a full data sharing agreement | between CBSA and US CBP/ICE. | | (note: this is a stupid, humorous theoretical, not real | advice on how to flee to avoid prosecution) | | also, a note, any airline flight that crosses US airspace | submits its passenger manifest to US CBP/ICE/DHS | electronically as a database transfer, this has been a | thing for 20+ years as a result of 9/11 and the PATRIOT | act. | thehappypm wrote: | Taking a large sum of cash would have probably been a | trigger for the folks surveilling him, though. Maybe he | could get away but that is going to trigger something. | jsemrau wrote: | Why the need for the large amount of cash? It's not that | you can't access banking websites from abroad. Sure, his | bank accounts might be frozen or off-boarded as a result | of the investigation. But in general, you can always | transfer your money and don't need to bring cash. | notahacker wrote: | If you're expecting someone to call the police during or | after the meeting where they ask you about the crimes you | committed against them, you probably want to obtain | enough spending money before you're officially a | fugitive, rather than hope they won't cancel your credit | card or use it to find out where you are in the coming | days. | | Though you'd have thought someone committing financial | crimes in the _crypto_ industry might have more scope for | planning their offramp | victorvosk wrote: | From his perspective he could have believed it was just | coinbase connecting the dots and he was just going to leave | since they, if alone in their investigation, effectively had | no immediate power over him. | SilasX wrote: | Haha, and the first reply to that tweet is complaining that the | SEC is ignoring this while shackling another Coinbase venture. | That didn't age well! | | https://twitter.com/ChainLinkGod/status/1513926481486909442 | | Edit: Quoting in case it gets deleted: | | >>While the SEC was very swift in shutting down Coinbase Lend | for DARING to provide 4% yield | | >>They'll do absolutely nothing about this situation because | they are a corrupt organization that wants to see the average | American stay poor | paulpauper wrote: | it goes to show how the gov. takes this sort of crime | seriously, contrary to the popular belief that the SEC is | ignoring insider trading. if the pieces are there, they will | take action. | SilasX wrote: | To my discredit, I was one of those people. I stand | corrected. | [deleted] | paulpauper wrote: | It's amazing how they already had tabs on this guy and just | waited for him to leave but without arresting him sooner | | if you think you broke the law and want to avoid arrest, stay | away from the airport. | | anyone who buys a ticket they get your full info and then the | arrest is as easy as picking you up at the gate, nowhere to | hide. | asveikau wrote: | I wonder if the request to show up at the Seattle office was | some kind of working with law enforcement. Evidently he | planned to flee to India instead of take the meeting. He | seems to have known there was risk to him in that meeting. | paulpauper wrote: | it 100% was set up | rglover wrote: | So hire a Coyote into Mexico on foot. Got it. | | _For my assigned agent: this is not an admission of guilt, | just curiosity and information collection. Carry on._ | tmp_anon_22 wrote: | I wonder if the Tweet Account was fed info from someone in the | accused's circle who didn't get their cut. | NelsonMinar wrote: | What is happening here? This link is to stacker.news, a HN-like | website. It's for a story that is another active top story | already on HN. | | Are folks just commenting on the headline without even clicking | the link? | kerblang wrote: | Should I give a link to the other one even though it's | currently listed _right under_ this story? Heck why not... | occasionally the crypto discussions are intelligent... | | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32180428 | lizardactivist wrote: | There's been a lot of shakedowns and refurnishings in the crypto | landscape lately. The US seems to catch or point fingers at | people left and right. Why is this happening now all of a sudden? | nathanaldensr wrote: | Well, it has to happen at _some_ point, right? Considering the | fraud and scams are so blatant and obvious? | jamiek88 wrote: | The wheels of government grind slowly but inevitably. | nyokodo wrote: | > Why is this happening now all of a sudden? | | While the irrational exuberance is in full swing no one cares | about fraud, they just want to keep the cash flowing. Once the | crash starts that's when suddenly all that bad behavior gets | put in the spotlight. | wmf wrote: | You're mixing two things. There has been a run of bankruptcies | recently caused by the crypto price crash which itself was | caused by macroeconomic factors. There has also been a slow but | steady series of crypto enforcement actions over the last five | years or so. | runako wrote: | Am I reading the indictment correctly that they are actually | being charged with defrauding Coinbase, and that they are not | being directly charged with insider trading? | bogota wrote: | About time this happened. It has been widely known for a long | time. | | Crypto does not mean no regulations. Anyone who thinks that is | likely a teenager who has not seen what happens to the average | person when none exist. | misiti3780 wrote: | I'm surprised they were table to track the laundering, given it | sounds like they used a lot of different wallets. | kkielhofner wrote: | Companies like Chainalysis and TRM have contracts with almost | every federal law enforcement agency. They make this kind of | analysis almost trivial. | WJW wrote: | I wonder how many wallets you would need before it becomes a | problem to track. I would guess in the millions or more since | graph algorithms are pretty efficient these days. | aaaaaaaaaaab wrote: | How long of a linked list do you need to be unable to reach | its tail? | mccorrinall wrote: | There are exchanges which allow transactions from e.g | bitcoin to monero. As soon as you're on such a private | chain, you most likely broke the link. | WJW wrote: | I was thinking more along the lines of a directed graph | where each of the wallets pass the funding received to | multiple other wallets before the money finally converges | to a destination wallet, it doesn't have to be a straight | linked-list style line of wallets. | | In any case, the transaction costs alone probably makes | this prohibitive for more than a few dozen wallets. | voakbasda wrote: | And there is the issue that what is inefficient today may | become efficient tomorrow. The blockchain will be there | waiting for new forensic techniques. | nus07 wrote: | Curious about what would have happened had the protagonist | managed to board the flight to India and get there ? Would the | SEC and Coinbase been able to extradite or do anything then ? | zerkten wrote: | The US and India have an extradition treaty | (https://www.state.gov/wp- | content/uploads/2019/02/12873-India...). | walrus01 wrote: | I would rate the chances of an Indian (or Pakistani, or | Bangladeshi) national being able to evade capture | domestically in their home country in south asia as quite | high. | | In either country you can exist entirely in a cash-based | economy with no digital records of your actual identity | linked to any transactions or accounts if you put a bit of | effort and thought into it. | | Unless the fugitive was high enough profile that it would | cause the US to really put pressure on the relevant local | government to search out and capture them. | codegeek wrote: | "cash-based economy with no digital records of your actual | identity linked to any transactions or accounts" | | Not that easy in India anymore for last few years with | thinks like Aadhar/PAN card and almost every bank requiring | those. Even small time vendors prefer payment using phone | apps these days in India. | walrus01 wrote: | If someone had cooperative family members that could | withdraw cash banknotes from their own accounts it would | definitely be a lot easier. | | have also seen a large number of reports of how easy it | is to get a fraudulent aadhar card under a fake name, | using fabricated paper documents as origins of identity, | so that's a possible route | | I think the likelihood of this working would also be much | higher if someone relocated to a very rural location | where the local economy is much more cash based. (eg: if | you're from manipur, go find a medium sized town in the | hills and don't draw any attention to yourself) | lebed2045 wrote: | there's billion dollar telephone scam industry. How many | of these criminals were ever prosecuted or get extradited | to US? | jmoak3 wrote: | This is nothing new for Coinbase employees: | | https://bitfinexed.medium.com/coinbase-insider-trading-litec... | hubadu wrote: | That was a painful read. An "investigation" made by an | anonymous twitter user based on cherry-picked tweets, hearsays | and full of speculations. Many factual errors as well he didn't | sell at all time high and the timeline doesn't match either. | The claim regarding Litecoin increase and a supposed Bitfinex | escape is made up as well. | jmoak3 wrote: | This is nothing new for Coinbase employees: | | https://bitfinexed.medium.com/coinbase-insider-trading-litec... | | I recommend caution to crypto engineers - the world loves you | when you make people rich, and the world might be willing to | excuse shady behavior for a brief time. | | When things sour shady people will get what they deserve, and the | metaphorical mob will come for their associates/companies. | jqpabc123 wrote: | _I recommend caution to crypto engineers_ | | Fraud is everywhere in crypto but it has very little to do with | *crypto engineers*. | | In other words, lots of *engineers* are bedazzled by blockchain | but this isn't the source or the cause of most of the fraud. | Blockchain is just an accounting system. As this example shows, | there are lots of way to commit fraud outside of forging the | books. | jmoak3 wrote: | Follow up: | | https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/8369-21 | Asparagirl wrote: | That mob is not so metaphorical... | | "Do Kwon, the founder of the cryptocurrency Luna and the | stablecoin TerraUSD, has reportedly been in contact with police | after a possible investor in the coin "trespassed" at his home, | according to a new report from South Korea's largest newspaper, | The Chosun Ilbo. Crypto News reports the investor lost roughly | $1.56 million in the collapse of Luna, a claim Gizmodo could | not independently verify. | | An unnamed man rang the doorbell to Kwon's apartment around | 6:23 p.m. local time Thursday night, according to Chosun, and | Kwon's wife answered the door. The man reportedly asked | something like, "Is your husband home?" and then proceeded to | run off... | | The unnamed man who arrived at Kwon's home faces a charge of | trespassing because he allegedly entered the apartment complex | by slipping through a gap in the apartment building's common | door, according to Chosun. CCTV footage from the incident and | surrounding area is reportedly being reviewed..." | | https://gizmodo.com/luna-price-do-kwon-police-south-korea-ho... | | See also: the Mt. Gox protestors who staked out the company's | headquarters in Tokyo, almost a decade ago: | | https://www.theverge.com/2014/2/19/5425220/protest-at-mt-gox... | H8crilA wrote: | Why are they being prosecuted? Those are not securities, or are | they? "Wire fraud" implies that they defrauded someone by lying | to their own advantage over a digital channel. Insider trading is | generally legal for non-securities. | | EDIT: I am not implying that they shouldn't, on a moral level. | They should! I am asking about legal technicalities, and about | the state of law around those issues. | tyrfing wrote: | Title 18 insider trading: | https://www.yalelawjournal.org/note/title-18-insider-trading | | It's prosecution for "insider trading" that doesn't rely on | anything specific to insider trading. Focus on the insider | part, not the trading - it's about embezzlement of confidential | information. | yieldcrv wrote: | Correct they are charged with Wire Fraud and Conspiracy to | commit Wire fraud | | They are not charged with securities violations, despite roping | in the Securities Exchange Commission, because the government | is not confident that it can bring a securities violation. They | are not charged with any statute under commodities regulations | or consumer product fraud either. | | The government is using a new interpretation of wire fraud, | because people really don't like that this action occurred and | NFT's affected enough people. | | So the wire fraud is a stretch but is the most reliable catch- | all charge they have, absent any guidance from Congress. | | I also think it is overly ambitious. DOJ did this a few months | ago as well in another NFT case. In both cases they relied on | the existence of a confidentiality agreement with the employer, | to trigger the mapping of a financial action to a fraud | statute. | MR4D wrote: | I have this same question. Crypto has not been defined as an | asset category yet (and the SEC has not declared it to be a | "security" so far). | | FTA - ". . . wire fraud conspiracy and wire fraud in connection | with a scheme to commit insider trading in cryptocurrency | assets. . ." | | I'm presuming that it's the fraud they are going after, and the | "insider trading" aspect is verbal sugar. | | I can't imagine that insider trading would ever apply to real | estate or art, so not sure why it's even mentioned here. | | IANAL, so perhaps someone wiser than me can add some clarity | here? | zamalek wrote: | Hopefully this forces the issue and we can get some clarity | on cryptocurrency taxation. | pirate787 wrote: | From another angle, he defrauded Coinbase, through violating | the terms of employment as part of the listing team. | fallingknife wrote: | Wouldn't that be a civil matter between him and Coinbase? | JumpCrisscross wrote: | > _Wouldn 't that be a civil matter between him and | Coinbase?_ | | It's that, too. But fraud is a crime. | [deleted] | smsm42 wrote: | Fraud is both civil and criminal matter. | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraud#Criminal_fraud | H8crilA wrote: | Right! That may be the answer. | wmf wrote: | "Nikhil Wahi and Ramani allegedly purchased at least 25 crypto | assets, at least nine of which were securities, and then | typically sold them shortly after the announcements for a | profit." https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2022-127 | H8crilA wrote: | Yeah, it may be a way to officially call at least some of | them securities: | | > _" We are not concerned with labels, but rather the | economic realities of an offering," said Gurbir S. Grewal, | Director of the SEC's Division of Enforcement. "In this case, | those realities affirm that a number of the crypto assets at | issue were securities, and, as alleged, the defendants | engaged in typical insider trading ahead of their listing on | Coinbase. Rest assured, we'll continue to ensure a level | playing field for investors, regardless of the label placed | on the securities involved."_ | | Should this go to the courts which end up deciding that they | are in fact securities - that will be a nice precedent. | anonu wrote: | As Matt Levine would say - and will certainly write about | tomorrow - Insider Trading is about theft. They stole valuable | company information before it was publicly known to profit from | it... | potamic wrote: | It's in the release, | | > U.S. Attorney Damian Williams said: "Today's charges are a | further reminder that Web3 is not a law-free zone. Just last | month, I announced the first ever insider trading case | involving NFTs, and today I announce the first ever insider | trading case involving cryptocurrency markets. Our message with | these charges is clear: fraud is fraud is fraud, whether it | occurs on the blockchain or on Wall Street. And the Southern | District of New York will continue to be relentless in bringing | fraudsters to justice, wherever we may find them." | | > FBI Assistant Director Michael J. Driscoll said: "Although | the allegations in this case relate to transactions made in a | crypto exchange - rather than a more traditional financial | market - they still constitute insider trading. As alleged, the | defendants made illegal trades in at least 25 different crypto | assets and realized ill-gotten gains totaling approximately | $1.5 million. Today's action should demonstrate the FBI's | commitment to protecting the integrity of all financial markets | - both 'old' and 'new.'" | | Why do you say insider trading is legal for non-securities? | H8crilA wrote: | > _Why do you say insider trading is legal for non- | securities?_ | | What, exactly, prohibits you from doing that? Certainly not | the Securities Act of 1933 or any SEC rule. | | Overall maybe this is a complicated way of officially calling | them securities and cleaning this mess on a higher level. At | least that's what the FBI implies. However, it is not up to | the FBI to decide what is a security, but rather up to the | courts of law. This will be interesting. | JumpCrisscross wrote: | > _Certainly not the Securities Act of 1933 or any SEC | rule_ | | U.S. insider trading restrictions are creatures of common | law. The '33 Act makes no mention of it. The same | antifraud/antitheft theories enable prosecution of a | Coinbase insider using their position to trade with | advantage. | theturtletalks wrote: | Vegas uses insider knowledge for bets all the time and I | thought it was allowed because betting slips aren't a | security. | [deleted] | vishnugupta wrote: | It talks volumes about the internal controls at CB that it took a | tweet to expose this. | | Given the speed with which they grew last two years I expect | their financial and security processes to be next to nothing. | | This is just tip of an iceberg. Insiders would have made tens of | millions over last two years of bull run, if not more. This dude | just got greedy and unlucky to get caught just as the crypto | bubble began bursting. | admn2 wrote: | I was surprised to see the CSO replying to the tweet. I do | agree with you, but do you think that was more for the PR and | they knew about it or no way? | Spooky23 wrote: | Coinbase is an awful company. I signed up for a debit card for | some reason, and it immediately became a fraud target. Someone | tried to use it at a restaurant in South Africa, a store in | Singapore and a mobile provider in Moldova. | | The card was obviously compromised, and the only reason I | didn't lose money is that I didn't make any available. So | called, emailed, texted Coinbase on 5 different occasions and | they _never_ deactivated the card and didn't appear to have a | procedure to do so. | | Not a place I would trust with money. | Solvitieg wrote: | Sounds like one of your accounts has compromised. Perhaps | your email address? | Twirrim wrote: | How would email being compromised leak a debit card number? | Can't think of any service I've used online in the last | decade+ that would send me the full debit card number that | way, or even make it visible when I sign in to their | website. | jandrese wrote: | First rule of crypto is assume the exchange is compromised. | Money on the exchange is always in danger, as is anything | connected to it. They are not banks. The people running them | are usually yahoos. They are not a save place to put money | for any extended length of time. | pjc50 wrote: | A lot of people suspect there's ""official"" insider trading at | the exchanges; there's no reason for the exchange not to front- | run orders or fake the order book if they think they can get | away with it. Or trade against heavily leveraged positions to | liquidate them. Or prop-trade with the customers' money. | [deleted] | nullc wrote: | If you look at the details in this case it appears that the | actual charges are for exploiting confidential company | information for his own gain and not insider trading. | ChainOfFools wrote: | Crypto people love to talk about incentives when referring to | things like crypto adoption by the market, or corrupt actions | on the part of incumbent powers like bankers or politicians. | | They are much less enthusiastic about discussing incentives | when it comes to things like exchange operatiors front | running their clients, centralizing forces in crypto | generally, etc. | pfraze wrote: | Depends on who you're talking to, but I think the interest | by crypto people in Uniswap suggests they're pretty aware | of this problem and not excusing it. | olalonde wrote: | What makes you say that? In my experience, centralized | exchanges are perceived as public enemy #1 by a lot of | crypto people. They are seen as a necessary (but temporary) | evil to bridge the "legacy" fiat world. | [deleted] | BolexNOLA wrote: | > They are seen as a necessary (but temporary) evil to | bridge the "legacy" fiat world. | | There is no world in which they can put that genie back | in the bottle, so I really hope they don't actually | believe it's "temporary." | ETH_start wrote: | The top decentralized exchange, Uniswap, has overtaken | the top centralized exhanges in liquidity depth for | several major trading pairs: | | https://uniswap.org/blog/uniswap-v3-dominance | | So there _is_ a world where centralized exchanges have | far less relevance than they do today. | HaZeust wrote: | Uniswap is *so* easy to slander to the ground from | centralized exchanges if push came to shove. It's the | primary tool for exit scams, there's barely any | qualifications or criteria to mint a coin, ICOs simply | don't matter anymore - all are particularly easy points | to hit if you're competitors fall short on handling them. | And that's just mentioning the pragmatic on how Uniswap | neglects fixing the BAD side of crypto, it doesn't even | go over how Uniswap delivers only niche features on the | good side of crypto - and doesn't do things like foster | easier crypto buying/selling for mass adoption from the | average person. | | Please, come back to me when Uniswap's market cap isn't | 1/3 of Coinbase's. | lottin wrote: | Is it me or "decentralised" almost always means | "crippled"? The critical function that exchanges have is | to allow people to buy and sell tokens. Decentralised | exchanges can't do that. They only allow trading a token | for another token. | solveit wrote: | "Decentralized" doesn't mean crippled. "On-chain" does. | | At some point, you need to interact with the off-chain | world (say, when you want US dollars and not tokenized US | dollars), and that path to the physical world becomes a | point of failure that can be controlled by mundane means | such as uniformed people with guns. The crypto-utopian | solution is to move everything on-chain. The pragmatist | solution is centralized exchanges that more-or-less plays | by the rules of wider society and is allowed by society | to move stuff in and out of the blockchain. | tromp wrote: | Correct me if I'm wrong, but Uniswap doesn't allow people | to buy crypto currency with fiat. It only exchanges | between various crypto currencies. There will always be a | need for fiat-crypto exchanges like Coinbase, that are | centralized by necessity. | SilasX wrote: | Sure, but that role could be truncated to "convert | between financial system currencies and stablecoins" | while DeFi handles all the other work of an exchange, | displacing centralized exchanges. | | And even that role might be obviated once enough people | transact directly in the stablecoins. | | (Not necessarily saying it's likely, just delineating the | hypothetical word where DeFi has maximally taken over.) | BolexNOLA wrote: | I just don't see it going away. Services like Coinbase | have done more for adoption than any crypto-evangelists | on message boards ever have if we're being honest with | ourselves. People need it to feel familiar, and these | pseudo-banks/stock exchange platforms feel _close enough_ | to the "real thing" that people are making the jump. I | mean the fact that over a decade later and wallets are | still this incredibly high-friction experience for users | says a lot. Just having an easy place where you go "input | debit card, get crypto," makes all the difference - and | that's a service large exchanges have covered, thus | locking people into their platform(s). | | Edit: Also, Uniswap...ehhhh. Not a great example for your | point. | [deleted] | joyfylbanana wrote: | Depends on how you use the exchanges. If you just buy and | sell BTC and keep your coins off-exchange, there is little | reason to care about whatever schemes the exchanges are | doing. If you start playing with leverage, you will be | putting much more trust at stake, and it is your individual | decision to do that. I have been involved with BTC | community for many years and most Bitcoiners I know do not | trade back and forth, do not buy that much shitcoins and do | not store their coins on exchanges, so these schemes do not | affect them. | pcthrowaway wrote: | I work for a company that provides financial services to/on | centralized exchanges, but none of us really like the | centralization there; even if it's our bread and butter | (for now) I think most "crypto people" are more excited | about decentralized exchanges. | noobermin wrote: | This sounds a lot like a no-true scotsman... | [deleted] | [deleted] | SilasX wrote: | Say what? The whole DeFi ecosystem basically exists to | bring transparency to operations like exchanges. With e.g. | liquidity pools, you can see exactly what trades it's | processing and how it handles them. | pvarangot wrote: | "A lot of people suspect"? Are we being overt? Am I the only | one that not very subtly got offered insider trading of NFT | tokens as a perk for joining a crypto company? | xur17 wrote: | I'd be very curious to hear more about this.. | xsmasher wrote: | Do you mean you were offered tokens? Or do you mean you | were explicitly offered access to non-public information | that you could trade on? | pjc50 wrote: | Not my intention! I hold no crypto stake apart from the | free Keybase one and work for a non-crypto company. But the | fact that you read that in my message indicates that it | _has_ been a clear part of the "offering" of crypto - that | it's permissionless. i.e. there are no rules and no law | enforcement. | adrr wrote: | It's legal for the company to do it. Not legal for | individuals. Coinbase could have bought assets ahead of time | and done the same thing legally. | | There was a case where a person had access to the credit card | transaction data[1] and used that data to figure out sales | prior to earning calls. That same data is available to | hedgefunds willing to purchase it from Bloomberg. They call | legally get a companies sales data prior to earnings and | trade off that information. | | 1. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-sec-capitalone- | insidertra... | [deleted] | compsciphd wrote: | bloomberg doesn't trade on that information, heck I didn't | work on anything financially oriented while at Bloomberg | (worked on BLAW) and I was still restricted in the type of | investments they allowed me to make. | | i.e. by definition bloomberg buying the data and making it | available to the terminal is making the data public. | spaceman_2020 wrote: | Anyone who has used any leverage trading on any exchange knows | that the exchange has visibility into your positions and will | run your stops. | | Open secret in the industry. | | Unregulated markets promote all sorts of bad actors. And since | the returns are wild anyway, everyone just accepts it. | scrlk wrote: | One incident that really stands out for me was BitMEX | conveniently having "server issues" at one point during the | March 2020 crash. Their liquidation engine was hammering the | price down - then they took an outage - when they were back | up BTC recovered. | rmbyrro wrote: | > Ethereum blockchain wallet "that bought hundreds of thousands | of dollars of tokens exclusively featured in the Coinbase Asset | Listing post about 24 hours before it was published." | | It talks volumes that had they done this in a privately held | network, it might have been harder to catch them. | | All the "blockchain is anonymous, hence it's made by and for | fraudsters" is a total nonsense. | LordDragonfang wrote: | Evidence of flaws in using software for a given use case is | not evidence that that use case is not what was intended. | Software can have bugs or be badly designed for its intended | purpose, especially when it comes to security. | | People on this forum should understand that better than most. | duxup wrote: | And yet the story is about a fraudster? | rmbyrro wrote: | About a fraudster that was caught by a random person who | could look at his fraud publicly, under the light of the | sun. | | The part after "fraudster..." is what sets apart the | blockchain and traditional financial networks, when it | comes to fraud. | | If you commit fraud in the traditional financial system, | only the financial institution has a chance to find it | suspicious and tip the government agency responsible to | investigate. | | In the blockchain, literally ANYONE ON THE PLANET can keep | an eye on the fraudster. | duxup wrote: | >is what sets apart the blockchain and traditional | financial networks, when it comes to fraud | | Are you telling me that fraudsters get caught on the | blockchain more than other places? | incone123 wrote: | This might be the same problem as libre open source | software: Anyone can search for evidence of fraud (or | software bugs) but not many are doing so. | georgeecollins wrote: | This! It's so obvious from the buy / sell ratios of | coinbase that they are fueled by millions (or 100ks) of | small investors investing $10k or less. Joe consumer | isn't going to sue over a bad investment. I am guessing | that polygon, gamestop is similar. Also the counter | parties aren't major US companies, they are often small | to mid cap LLCs. So when the thing they push collapses | they sort of fade away. | | If this were a major US company ripping off say a US | bank, there would be investigation. But a small start up | (I'm thinking of the issuers, not coinbase) ripping off | people all over the world for $100- $20k with false | promises-- it's practically a victimless crime. Coinbase | and the exchanges aren't necessarily guilty of this but | they are complicit. | rmbyrro wrote: | > Are you telling me that fraudsters get caught on the | blockchain more than other places? | | I'm sorry, but I did not say "more" and "other places" in | my comment. | | What I said is what I wrote. | | My point is: blockchain is not anonymous. The hate | bandwagon that says fraudsters have a safe heaven for | doing whatever they want without a slight chance of being | caught is just fantasy land... | duxup wrote: | > doing whatever they want without a slight chance of | being caught | | I've never heard it stated that way. | superjan wrote: | The fraud is there not because it is anonymous, it's there | because crypto trade is not sufficiently regulated. | giarc wrote: | What could they do though? Ask all employees to provide their | personal wallet addresses then monitor that? Seems unlikely to | happen. | spaceman_2020 wrote: | Opsec in crypto funds is terrible | | Most serious hedge funds won't even allow you to bring your | cellphone inside the trading pit. | sudosysgen wrote: | Serious hedge funds won't allow you to trade or having any | positions that may remotely have a conflict of interest. | chollida1 wrote: | I mean, this is exactly what happens when you work for a | hedge fund. You have to provide statements for all trading | accounts you and your immediate family own. | | So, yeah, this is exactly what coin base should be doing. | They should require all employees to list all account | addresses they have access to. | | It's a trivial ask for the employee and its trivial to scan | etothepii wrote: | I worked for an investment bank for many years. We had to | sign a declaration that we would not make trades of any | kind without permission from compliance (the withholding of | this permission in 2012 is why I am not a BitCoin | millionaire). However, there was no requirement to hand | over login details to brokerage accounts etc. I would be | surprised if there was elsewhere. | incone123 wrote: | The person you replied to said 'statements' not 'login | details'. Are you treating these things as synonymous? I | suppose if I was only required to hand over statements I | could edit them. | sudosysgen wrote: | Not login details, addresses are read only. And editing | statements is fraud. | incone123 wrote: | Yes, that's why I wondered if the direct access via login | details was intended to prevent that fraud. | iav wrote: | Those days pretty much all brokerages will provide a feed | of your trading activity and open positions to a 3rd | party compliance aggregator like ComplySci. No login | details needed, the feed is read-only, and only has need- | to-know information. It requires double opt in - you | provide information to your employer, and then the | brokerage will confirm with you that you authorized the | feed. But if you have a weird account that doesn't | support this system, then you always have the option of | entering them manually and certifying that you haven't | missed any. | cubecul wrote: | Actually, yes! That's what happens today | quadcore wrote: | _Given the speed with which they grew last two years I expect | their financial and security processes to be next to nothing. | | This is just tip of an iceberg._ | | Sounds like wild accusations to me. Id like to think the | company executives have high integrity and maybe they caught | others we havent heard of. | vkou wrote: | Undeveloped financial and security processes aren't a | question of solely integrity. | | You _need_ integrity to implement them, but just having | integrity doesn 't mean you're going to implement them, or to | implement them correctly. | | You need expertise, experience, and to get burned a couple | dozen times before your institution figures out how to do | these things right. And even then, it's a constantly moving | target. | woodruffw wrote: | Precisely. This was one actor; it beggars belief to expect that | his is the _only_ (much less largest) instance of insider | trading at these firms. | SamReidHughes wrote: | The information was on a secret chat limited to a short list of | employees, that this one was on. | | There isn't any _internal_ control, short of bionic implants, | that can prevent this. | nathias wrote: | very good, do politicians next | [deleted] | kwertyoowiyop wrote: | Captain Renault: "I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is | going on in here!" | nullc wrote: | Looks like the prosecution is actually over the use of coinbase's | confidential information for personal profit. ... I suppose the | DOJ is of the view that coinbase itself trading on this | information was just fine. | paulpauper wrote: | He shoud have just made fake Saylor and Musk youtube livestream | videos instead . Those ppl make way more money and don't caught, | hence why the scam will never go away. | paulpauper wrote: | He should have just made those youtube livestream giveaway videos | instead--the ones impersoning famous people like Michael Saylor | and others. Those people make way more and no arrests. | tqi wrote: | A few hypotheticals I'm curious about: | | 1. If Coinbase itself had purchased a bunch of coins before | listing on its own exchange, would that be illegal? | | 2. If the employee had purchased coins that were correlated with | the ones that were listed, but not the specific ones that were | listed, would that be illegal? | 323 wrote: | 1. Unlikely, it's just investing. You are expected to gain from | your investment, to promote it, etc. Like how companies buy and | sell their own stock all the time and it's not considered | insider trading. | | 2. Yes, since the fact that the coin was to be listed was | inside information. You will be accused of insider trading if | you trade correlated assets. Obviously there is a threshold | somewhere, like if you have positive insider info on TSLA and | you invest in a passive stock market index fund. | pvarangot wrote: | With 1. I think it depends on intent. For example when Tesla | purchased BTC before announcing they were taking payments to | have some liquidity on it for financial reasons or whatever, | then it's ok. If you can prove they are front-running the | market because for example right after announcing they are | listing a coin they dump what they got before listing it then | yeah maybe that's insider trading. | | The thing is if they take enough measures to prevent their | employees from doing it. It's hard considering they can do it | on another exchange, but at least on their own exchange my | understanding is they should prevent their employees from | trading if they have privileged information. | OnuRC wrote: | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30797879 | | I asked but now we get some details, lol | modeless wrote: | The amounts in these insider trading schemes always seem small to | me. $750k per person? If I had advance knowledge of all Coinbase | listing announcements I'm pretty sure I could make more than | that! | notch656a wrote: | I mean one of the dudes was flying to india. 750k is probably | enough to buy some rural property there and live the rest of | your life off interest. The less money, the less radar | signature. | time_to_smile wrote: | At least according to levels.fyi an IC6 PM at coinbase can | make around 500k/year in total comp. | | So if the goal was to acquire a bunch of rural property in | India and live off interest it seems that just working and | saving for a few years would be a wildly less risky route. | | Personally I don't think it's a good risk/reward calculus to | try to commit potential felony offenses for levels money that | are reasonably in line with what you could eventually get as | your annual TC. I can understand a barista at starbucks | committing fraud for 750k, but it doesn't seem quite worth it | for a PM at one of the highest paying tech companies. | anewpersonality wrote: | He goofed. Should have left the country far before. | | And was found out only after a random twitter account did | correlations | | How much more crypto employees are getting away with it? | vishnugupta wrote: | > Should have left the country far before. | | People just don't quit while ahead. They are confident that | they are smart enough to keep their scheme going just a | little bit longer. I mean 750K is almost good enough to | retire in India and work as a freelancer or something. But | no, they need a bigger house, bigger cars and what not. | ayewo wrote: | Which Twitter account was it? | mikeyouse wrote: | https://twitter.com/cobie/status/1513874972552355846 | TechBro8615 wrote: | I appreciate how the top reply to that Tweet is an | animated GIF of Speaker Pelosi rubbing her hands | together. | | Note: Speaker Pelosi has not been arrested for insider | trading | anewpersonality wrote: | Speaker Pelosi's insider trades are a parliamentary | privilege! | ingenieros wrote: | According to Glassdoor: "The typical Coinbase Product Manager | salary is $210,576 per year." This guy was dumb AF to risk | losing not just his cushy tech job, but potentially even his | right to remain in the U.S depending of his legal status. | parineum wrote: | 750k is a lot of money. | tempsy wrote: | It's definitely not when you're risking your livelihood. | | Total comp for a mid level PM is probably north of $400k, so | this is less than 2 years salary. | modeless wrote: | Sure, but $7.5m is more money, and seems achievable. Dogecoin | spiked 6% after its Coinbase listing announcement and Binance | offers 50x leverage. And Coinbase listed 83 different things | in 2021. | greenthrow wrote: | The bigger the amount the more likely someone will notice. | modeless wrote: | I doubt these guys were that afraid of law enforcement | because nobody thought insider trading laws applied to | crypto markets at the time. I guess they could be afraid | that their source would get fired, but if you've already | made 20x his salary then getting fired doesn't seem like | a huge problem. | greenthrow wrote: | They could have just been scared of getting in trouble at | work. Who knows. | ourmandave wrote: | Hopefully they're investigating Andreessen Horowitz (a16z) pump | and dump business model. | | https://amycastor.com/2022/05/19/a16zs-state-of-crypto-repor... | nickff wrote: | Why are you calling it "pump-and-dump"? Is there evidence of | them dumping? The link just says that the author thinks a16z is | wrong and likely engaging in motivated reasoning. | biggc wrote: | Didn't a handful of Coinbase employees make out like bandits | before Ethereum was listed? What's changed since then? | O__________O wrote: | Given the article explicitly covers the topic of an employee | exploiting prior knowledge of what coins were going to be | listed and when - clear the investigators were aware of the | potential for this; if others were doing it, they must have | done it in a way that was not obvious. | | If you have specific verifiable information, hire an attorney | and use them to file a SEC whistleblower report. If your | evidence leads to enforcement actions that are subject to their | jurisdiction and the fines collected are over one million, you | will anonymously get 10-30% of the fines they collect. | bhouston wrote: | Please explain! | tpxl wrote: | When a coin gets listed its price generally goes up. | therein wrote: | As far as I know Coinbase employees had leverage enabled for | them when BCH was listed and they knew the whole trajectory. | rvz wrote: | > Didn't a handful of Coinbase employees make out like bandits | before Ethereum was listed? | | I'm interested in this 'claim', Any source for that? | Ave wrote: | You might be thinking of Charlie Lee? Charlie Lee joined | Coinbase, wash traded Litecoin [1] to give the appearance of | wider interest and volume in order to get Litecoin listed on | Coinbase, and promptly dumped all his bags at the peak. | | [1] https://i.redd.it/u9vhbxvr63t71.jpg | lawn wrote: | The best part of the story is the fervour that supporters | defended his decision to dump his bags, because "it was good | for the coin" or something. | anewpersonality wrote: | Let's admit the true problem of crypto is allowing | sociopathic nerds to act as if they will not face | consequences. | ffggvv wrote: | 99.9% haven't | [deleted] | hubadu wrote: | Charlie Lee made all his fortune from selling his Bitcoin and | Ethereum the rest is marginal. His track record regarding the | launch, support and development of Litecoin is impeccable and | rather unique in the space. Even half a decade after having | no stake in the game he's still dedicating his life to | promote and develop Litecoin. | ffggvv wrote: | didn't the guy who founded litecoin and worked at CB in the early | days do the same? | elteto wrote: | First ever? | bulbosaur123 wrote: | Charged for what? There is no "insider trading" with cryptos, | just as there isn't any with Forex, fiat currencies. He can't be | charged, because there is no crime. No law prevents you to trade | cryptocurrencies or fiat on insider knowledge. Might be | unethical, but not illegal. | choppaface wrote: | Inside trading is fraud, no matter the security or property, | same as with Opensea NFT case: | | https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/former-employee-nft-mar... | | The main problem with crypto is it forces us all to have to re- | learn why fraud is bad, and in the process it allows those in | power to arbitrage the fraud-learning itself. Satoshi | explicitly remarks that fraud is a critical weakness of crypto. | Regulations and laws might suck, but when so many societies | have adopted anti-fraud mechanisms, hey maybe that was actually | a good idea and not something we need to re-learn? | | Even Roughgarden's textbook proves the vulnerabilities of | blockchain-based mechanisms.. .. Maybe crypto advocates citing | false straw man arguments should be considered investment | advice and punished by the SEC as well. | tdhoot wrote: | The article says Wire Fraud and Conspiracy. | aakilfernandes wrote: | IANAL but I believe the legal theory is they stole proprietary | information from Coinbase (information about an upcoming | listing) and used it for personal profit. The "victims" in this | view are NOT users of the exchange (or the broader | cryptocurrency market) but rather shareholders of Coinbase. | andrewljohnson wrote: | There is actually no particular law against insider trading at | all, not even related to equities... it's all securities and | wire fraud. | https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2022-06-02/don-t-... | dragonwriter wrote: | > There is actually no particular law against insider trading | at all, not even related to equities... | | There actually is. See, well, a whole lot of 15 USC Chapter | 2B [0], notably provisions like 15 USC Sec. 78p (prohibiting | certain trades by corporate insiders, and creating civil | liability of those conducting such trades to the issuer of | the security thus traded) and 78u-1 (authorizing civil | penalties by the SEC for insider trading made illegal by the | Securities and Exchange Act.) | | What Bloomberg probably meant to say is that there is not a | distinct _crime_ of insider trading, but that illegal insider | trading is generally _also_ the crime of securities fraud. | | [0] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/chapter-2B | jc_811 wrote: | Everything Everywhere Is Securities Fraud: | https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-06-26/everyt... | [deleted] | danaos wrote: | That is barely scratching the surface. I remember reports on | reddit of people buying newly listed crypto assets in advance. | That was in ~2016 and they didn't even try to hide. | lawn wrote: | Or how about Litecoin's creator who worked for Coinbase and | lobbied for Litecoin to get added to the exchange? | jmoak3 wrote: | Yup! | | https://bitfinexed.medium.com/coinbase-insider-trading- | litec... | hubadu wrote: | Why you keep spamming that link here? That twitter thread | is built on a layer of conjectures with nothing tangible. | [deleted] | jmoak3 wrote: | I thought it was a good summary, and that people should | see it. | | Have you read the CFTC's fines for Coinbase's wash | trading between Litecoin/Bitcoin in 2016 to pump up | volume? | | https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/8369-21 | | From the fine: | | >a former Coinbase employee used a manipulative or | deceptive device by intentionally placing buy and sell | orders in the Litecoin/Bitcoin trading pair on GDAX that | matched each other as wash trades. This created the | misleading appearance of liquidity and trading interest | in Litecoin. Coinbase is therefore found to be | vicariously liable as a principal for this employee's | conduct. | | I wouldn't be surprised if Jeff here is correct in his | guess of who did this: https://twitter.com/jeffjohnrobert | s/status/13730545911604838... | | >According to the order, between January 2015 and | September 2018, Coinbase recklessly delivered false, | misleading, or inaccurate reports concerning transactions | in digital assets, including Bitcoin, on the GDAX | electronic trading platform it operated. During this | period, Coinbase operated two automated trading programs, | Hedger and Replicator, which generated orders that at | times matched with one another. The GDAX Trading Rules | specifically disclosed that Coinbase was trading on GDAX, | but failed to disclose that Coinbase was operating more | than one trading program and trading through multiple | accounts. | hubadu wrote: | There is nothing whatsoever that says that the given | employee is Charlie Lee. Since you are the one here | making that claim, isn't that exposing you to slander if | it turns out to be a false? On top of it you seem | confused by the two different things addressed by the | linked CFTC statement, the litecoin related thing | (Litecoin/Bitcoin trading pair) happened in August & | September 2016 (6 weeks total) and you are confusing it | with the inaccurate reports during January 2015 and | September 2018 which is a separate point. | jmoak3 wrote: | I included "According to the order, between January 2015 | and September 2018, Coinbase recklessly delivered false, | misleading, or inaccurate reports concerning transactions | in digital assets" as extra evidence that Coinbase and | it's employees have a history of untrustworthy behavior. | px43 wrote: | Litecoin was the third cryptocurrency to be added, and it was | the most obvious choice to be next, seeing as how it had the | next highest market cap after Bitcoin and Ethereum. Before | Ethereum was a thing, Litecoin spent a lot of time as the #2 | cryptocurrency. It was the original "altcoin". There was | already massive demand to add Litecoin, which is probably a | key reason that they hired Charlie in the first place. | maerF0x0 wrote: | What they did is definitely unethical, but I place at least some | of the blame on the government themselves. | | How did "crypto" become a >$1T marketplace with so little | legislation? Failures on multiple fronts of the US government. | princevegeta89 wrote: | OMG gimme a break, isn't crypto itself a huge insider-trading | sort of market? Why is this such a big deal for Coinbase unless | there are other intentions behind this arrest? | fny wrote: | Yes it is... which is why the hammer needs to come down and | hard. | toolz wrote: | This is a value judgement. If you find crypto to be unfair, | there's a very simple solution that doesn't require bringing | in guys with guns to deal out punishment. You can simply just | not participate. | | In an ideal world we could get rid of insider trading, but | selectively punishing people just makes the problem worse and | with so much of congress dominating the market I think it's | quite clear the punishment is selective and itself incapable | of being fair. | | It is much worse to give the illusion of fairness than to let | people freely choose whether the "fairness" of some market is | enough to justify participating. Of course, this is just my | opinion. | AlexandrB wrote: | > This is a value judgement. If you find crypto to be | unfair, there's a very simple solution that doesn't require | bringing in guys with guns to deal out punishment. You can | simply just not participate. | | Ok. And I assume the welfare bills of crypto scam victims | will be paid directly by crypto companies? What about | hospital bills from attempted suicides? If you want crypto | to be its own special island, fine, but you have to accept | the costs of dealing with _all_ the externalities. | toolz wrote: | > but you have to accept the costs of dealing with all | the externalities. | | cost benefit analysis seems rather simple to me. You | either pretend you can govern money into a better place | using vast amounts of precious resources, such as time | and political capital of our central planners, or you | celebrate that no one has reasonable expectations that | crypto is a safe market and allow it to continue to be an | unsafe market which will either die or sort itself out | with market pressures. | | We're not talking about necessary resources like food | land or shelter here. Crypto can live or die by its own | merits and to pretend governing into the remarkably | unfair landscape that is modern finance is worth the | resources necessary, seems to me, to be easily dismissed | as anything approaching reasonable. | | Crypto will very likely continue to get more governance, | but that's not good or unexpected. It's just centralized | power doing what centralized power does, which is expand | its power and reach. | tylersmith wrote: | Coinbase has an interest in not having their information | abused, and when an employee granted access to that information | abuses it it's fraud. It has nothing to do with crypto or | insider trading regulations. | throwaway29812 wrote: | Yes. Crypto isn't a new technology it's unregulated finance. | [deleted] | saos wrote: | > On the evening of Sunday, May 15, 2022, ISHAN WAHI purchased a | one-way flight to India that was scheduled to depart the next day | shortly before ISHAN WAHI was supposed to be interviewed by | Coinbase. Prior to boarding the flight, ISHAN WAHI falsely told | Coinbase employees that he had already departed for India when he | had not. [...] Prior to boarding the May 16, 2022 flight to | India, ISHAN WAHI was stopped by law enforcement and prevented | from leaving the country. | | hahahah | uncomputation wrote: | Great example of how most of the fluff around decentralized | finance being more fair just because it is public and "open" is | naive at best and a wolf in sheep's clothing at worst. They claim | that regulated banks are a moral evil and "wouldn't you want | something neutral and open and transparent," conveniently | forgetting that this will always favor those with money to | market, attract, and sell to potential "buyers" (scam victims, | really). Especially with the use of bots and crypto's rather | insular and hype-driven community, it becomes dangerously easy to | get tons of dumb money, almost entirely from people who are | desperate enough to believe it. | [deleted] | null0pointer wrote: | Coinbase is not decentralized finance, it's a centralized | crypto bank. | | > the fluff around decentralized finance being more fair just | because it is public and "open" is naive at best | | As another commenter pointed out, the investigation was | triggered by this tweet [0]. How is that not more open and | fair? If there wasn't a public record of the transactions, like | in traditional finance, this guy would have likely gotten away | with it. | | 0: https://twitter.com/cobie/status/1513874972552355846 | hackernewds wrote: | You have a point, but also this wouldn't have been unraveled as | easily in traditional financial systems. here's the tweet that | is cited in the indictment, that a layman could trace (and did) | | https://twitter.com/cobie/status/1513874972552355846?s=20&t=... | | Another debate why people on Twitter can do this, but the SEC | can't do it at scale. | Kukumber wrote: | Spring cleaning, about time! Unfortunately, it is too late for | coinbase, their reputation took a massive hit, and this arrest | came way too late | | The alternative to wallstreet, but with the same problems.. | bpodgursky wrote: | Hmm. Is this actually "insider" knowledge? I personally question | the validity of this charge. This employee had knowledge of what | COINBASE was going to do with the currency (ie, list it). He had | no fiduciary responsibility as pertaining to the coin itself. | | This is like knowing that Warren Buffer is going to say good | thing about Microsoft tomorrow, and buying it today as a result | (expecting it to rise). Is that actually illegal? | ayewo wrote: | You need to remember that Coinbase is a regulated entity like | other financial institutions and TFA clearly mentions that the | insider was part of a small set of employees that had access to | info that the rest of the employees did not have access to: | | > _Beginning at least in August 2021 and continuing through May | 2022, ISHAN WAHI was a member of a private Coinbase messaging | channel reserved for a small number of Coinbase employees with | direct involvement in the Coinbase asset listing process. The | private channel was used to discuss, among other things, "exact | announcement / launch dates + timelines" that Coinbase did not | wish to share with all of its employees._ | hef19898 wrote: | If your knowledge is privileged an non public, and might | reasonably impact share prices either way, yes it is illegal. | Not a lawyer, but your Buffet example above would be something | I'd either run through compliance before traiding or I just | wouldn't trade at all _before_ said whatever he planned to say. | | Source: Countless of SOX-mandatory insider trading trainings | and falling under rules covering restricted traiding windows at | US listed companies. | prepend wrote: | > If your knowledge is privileged an non public, and might | reasonably impact share prices either way, yes it is illegal. | | Unless you're in the US Congress as there is an exception for | their legislative insider info. | hef19898 wrote: | Rank and its privileges. It helps if you can make your own | rules I guess... | yjftsjthsd-h wrote: | Okay, so obvious question: Is it legal for random Joe on | the street to find out what trades congresspeople are | making and mirror them? | nathanvanfleet wrote: | Love to see crypto people discover laws the hard way. | seanhunter wrote: | Your Warren Buffet example would absolutely be illegal. | | Trading on the basis of material non-public price-sensitive | information or tipping someone off so they trade is market | abuse (ie illegal) in Europe. In the US, the rules are a little | more complex but basically yes it is illegal (if that's what he | did). | | You absolutely don't have to have fiduciary responsibility, and | you don't have to be an official insider, you simply have to | trade on the basis of material non-public price-sensitive | information in a product that's covered by the regulations or | give that price-sensitive information to someone else in the | form of a tip (with some expectation in the US of benefitting | iirc). | rblatz wrote: | Then what about groups that do short reporting, they do an | investigation into a company, take a short position, then | release that information to the public? It sounds like that | would fall under your definition. | seanhunter wrote: | The research they did would be obtainable from public | sources rather than being classified as material non- | public. That said, if you worked for (say) Pershing Square | and knew Bill Ackman was about to announce a short in some | stock and you traded it is your personal account that would | absolutely be illegal. | vageli wrote: | This article [0] seems at odds with your statement. | | > Dirks v. SEC, 463 U.S. 646 (1983) was a pivotal U.S. | Supreme Court decision regarding this type of insider | trading. In Dirks, the Court held that a prosecutor could | charge tip recipients with insider trading liability if the | recipient had reason to believe that the information's | disclosure violated another's fiduciary duty and if the | recipient personally gained from acting upon the information. | Dirks also created the constructive insider rule, which | treats individuals working with a corporation on a | professional basis as insiders if they come into contact with | non-public information. | | [0]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/insider_trading | alasdair_ wrote: | > Your Warren Buffet example would absolutely be illegal. | | My understanding is that it very much depends upon how the | information was obtained. If I, as a third party, overhear | Warren talking in a restaurant, that's very different from | hearing it during a Berkshire board meeting. | | Of course, everything, everywhere, is securities fraud. https | ://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-06-26/everyt... | seanhunter wrote: | That's one of the things I was handwaving over when I said | "in the US it's more complicated". In the context of being | an employee and hearing the information in your job it | would pretty much always be illegal. | iso1631 wrote: | If Joe Bloggs ran the autocue screen and got an advance copy | of the speech, would it be illegal? | | What if he overheard Buffet practicing his speech and bought | it - would that be illegal? | | If he were to tweet "I Joe Bloggs heard Buffett saying he is | about to say something good about Microsoft" and then buy a | few seconds later, would that be public information? | | When does public information change from being private | information to being public information nobody has noticed? | soperj wrote: | The only instance where this isn't illegal is if you're a | part of congress or the federal reserve. | tylersmith wrote: | This has nothing to do with fiduciary duty. He defrauded | Coinbase and is being charged for that. Deliberately | misappropriating privileged information like that is absolutely | a crime. | modeless wrote: | It's not confirmed to be illegal until they get a conviction. | So we will find out! It will be an interesting case. I'd wager | they do get convicted but we'll see. | gizmo686 wrote: | There are two seperate questions: | | 1) Do the alledged facts meet the legal requirements for the | crimes charged? | | 2) Are the alledged facts true? | | A trial is focused on question 2. A jury is called on to make | a determination of the facts of the case, they will be | instructed on what is/isn't illegal and not expected to make | any decision regarding questions of law. | | Question 1 can be answered in summary judgment before you | ever call a jury. | | Question 1 can also be answered through the appeals process | long after a guilty verdict is given. | toolz wrote: | A jury can decide if something _should_ be illegal and base | their verdict on that. Meaning that the jury is also | considering point 1 and whether this specific case should | be illegal, regardless of how clear the law is on the | subject. | skc wrote: | Does the fact that he tried to flee have any bearing on this | or can it plausibly be argued away is irrelevant? | modeless wrote: | Beats me, I'm no lawyer. But it seems plausible to me that | his intention was to avoid or at least delay getting fired | rather than intentionally fleeing law enforcement | specifically. | blocked_again wrote: | > As a result of the insider trading scheme, NIKHIL WAHI and | RAMANI collectively generated realized and unrealized gains | totaling at least approximately $1.5 million. | | Is this a joke? Seriously. I thought this case was about people | inside trading hundreds of millions of dollars. | smsm42 wrote: | It's nice that $1.5 million is pocket change to you, but it's | still against the law to get even such as small - for you - sum | by fraud, so SEC will prosecute it. | pcwalton wrote: | You expect to go to jail for being caught stealing $1,000 from | a cash register. So you shouldn't be surprised when you go to | jail for stealing $1,500,000 in cryptocurrency. | daenz wrote: | >On May 11, 2022, Coinbase's director of security operations | emailed ISHAN WAHI to inform him that he should appear for an in- | person meeting relating to Coinbase's asset listing process at | Coinbase's Seattle, Washington office on Monday, May 16, 2022. | ISHAN WAHI confirmed he would attend the meeting. | | Anyone know why Coinbase would set up this meeting if they knew | it was him? Was it a bluff to see if he'd flee? Or were they | setting up the arrest to happen at the office? Couldn't they just | have arrested him in his home? | notch656a wrote: | I know a lot of local police like to go into homes with guns | blazing, but the smart cops would much rather set someone up | outside of their home where they're less likely to be armed and | bunkered. | | If I were a cop arresting somebody in their home would be my | worst case scenario IMO. | Scoundreller wrote: | Toronto cops are definitely the dumb kind: went to execute a | search warrant on a gunsmith while he was in his gun workshop | and, whodathunkit, the gunsmith reached for a (non- | operational) gun! | | https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/rodger-kotanko- | self-... | ianhawes wrote: | I doubt that Coinbase would want to arrest this person at their | offices. I'm sure that the plan was to question the suspect | with the FBI present. If the FBI asks a question, and you lie, | it's a felony. If your employer asks you a question and you | lie, it's legal. | | Either way, this was a ruse to get WAHI to start talking. | Likely they would execute a search warrant at his residence | after he left to appear in-person. | | As an FYI, people under investigation by federal authorities | are added to a database that alerts agents to the purchase of | any flight tickets (domestic or international). Unfortunately | for the suspect this means he will undoubtedly be detained | until his trial in several years. | est31 wrote: | Note that they were charged for wire fraud and wire fraud | conspiracy. So not for actual Section 10(b) violations, aka | insider trading. | mellavora wrote: | I think Section 10(b) insider trading only applies to trading | company-issued securities based on inside knowledge of events | related to the company. | | You can't "insider trade" FX, for example. Likewise, you cannot | "insider trade" crypto. | stingraycharles wrote: | This may sound like a dumb question, but as a foreigner, I have | no idea what wire fraud actually means, but I hear it pretty | often. | | The explanation I found "Mail fraud and wire fraud are terms | used to describe the use of a physical or electronic mail | system to defraud another" doesn't really help me further, | other than it just being "fraud". | | What would be the difference between insider trading and fraud, | in this specific case? Would it mean that someone basically | enriched themselves with Coinbase _without_ it being through | trades (just to name an example, skimming rounding inaccuracies | in your favor) ? | noughtme wrote: | US authorities often don't have enough evidence to prosecute | for the underlying crime, or it may have low penalties, but | they often have the evidence to prosecute for mail fraud or | wire fraud(basically any means of electronic communication). | Mail/wire fraud are federal offences, so this also involves | federal prosecutors and agencies with more resources, | surveillance abilities, and higher penalties. | projektfu wrote: | Fraud can be a state or federal crime, "wire fraud" usually | means it is at the federal level because of its use of | interstate electronic communications. | | Mail fraud is similar. If you send someone a letter, you're | using the US Mail system and thus are involving the federal | level making it a federal crime. If you exclusively use a | private interstate letter carrier (FedEx, for example), you | are still committing mail fraud because the law was amended | to cover that. | rmbyrro wrote: | In layman's terms, wire fraud is committed when one uses a | financial transfer in connection with or to defraud others. | | Nowadays, it's very hard to commit financial fraud without | also committing wire fraude. | NineStarPoint wrote: | "Doesn't really help me further, other than it just being | 'fraud'." Shows a correct understanding of what wire fraud | is. It's an incredibly broad category, meaning basically any | fraud that happens at distance that doesn't involve a physics | means of communication like mail. | | In this case, because the trades were made via digital | communications, it's wire fraud. The reason you hear "wire | fraud" so much is, as you might be able to guess, the vast | majority of fraud these days takes place over the web. | | In this case the indictment is "wire fraud in connection with | a scheme to commit insider trading". So it is both wire fraud | and securities fraud. Generally speaking, the relevant | information will be whatever specific fraud they are accused | of committing over the wire, and not that it is the | incredibly generic term wire fraud. | [deleted] | tylersmith wrote: | Mail/wire fraud is simply fraud that was conducted using mail | or other communications platforms. | | Insider trading is specifically about rules around trading | securities. | | In this case the allegation has nothing to do with securities | trading, it's about an employee defrauding their employer by | misappropriating privileged information. | kepler1 wrote: | Also conducting fraud, if it ever touches a piece of US mail, | opens up the channel to be investigated and prosecuted via | the US Postal Inspection service. Which I have heard, they | are no joke. | Spooky23 wrote: | The problem is that separation of powers make most frauds a | state matter. If you were ripped off in NY, a local county | district attorney would prosecute you. | | The problem with that is state laws and capabilities are | inconsistent. Even in New York, where there is a well | established body of law for things like financial frauds, the | local prosecutors make lack capability or venue. If you live | in Lake Placid, NY and are scammed, it's unlikely that the | Essex County DA (probably 4 attorneys) has the capability to | prosecute a complex financial crime. If you live in | Manhattan, different story - that DA has thousands of | attorneys and expertise. | | The Federal government side-steps turf issues and inequity by | using more "umbrella" laws that are easy to approve. If you | commit a fraud that has a connection to the mail, "Mail | Fraud". If you use a phone, "Wire Fraud". If you take money | that isn't yours from an FDIC insured bank, that's a Federal | crime. If you lie to a Federal agent, that's a crime. | mjburgess wrote: | The federal government effectively needs "legal fictions" in | order to prosecute at the state level. | | The way it prosecutes fraud here is by observing that it's | over electronic wires which cross state lines. | googlryas wrote: | Insider trading is (roughly) specifically about using non- | public corporate information to make money. | | Fraud is generally about deceiving people. Wire fraud is | specifically about deceiving people using telecommunications | devices - imagine when telephones first became popular - a | fraudster before had to go knock on every door, expose his | face to the town, and possibly be driven out if people found | out what he was doing. With telephones, the fraudster could | sit in a loft in NYC and call thousands of people all over | the country with their fraud, and there would be very little | anyone could do to stop them. | treis wrote: | Note that the fraud here is against Coinbase. Namely, that | the defendant who worked there fraudulently agreed to abide | by non-disclosure and trading policies. The others are | wrapped up in conspiracy charges. | | I think this is a pretty novel charge and IMHO isn't going to | stick. They're going to have to prove an intent to deceive | and deceive specifically to "insider trade". Agreeing not to | disclose and then disclosing isn't in itself fraud. You have | to plan to disclose prior to that agreement to make it fraud. | perihelions wrote: | 10b-5 is an SEC regulation, not a criminal statute. | Administrative agencies don't have the power to define or | prosecute crimes. | | It's fair to characterize these criminal charges as "insider | trading" (I assume; the DoJ press release describes them using | that phrase). | nus07 wrote: | Curious about what would have happened had the protagonist | managed to board the flight to India and get there ? Would the | SEC and Coinbase been able to extradite or do anything then ? | housedrafta wrote: | Agamus wrote: | Asking for a friend? Or did you mean antagonist? | treis wrote: | The protagonist is the main/leading character in a story. | It's not a moral judgement except in the sense that stories | usually make the protagonist the good guy. | TecoAndJix wrote: | It is about perspective. The government & Coinbase are | antagonists to the POV of the fraudster and the fraudster | is an antagonist to the POV of the government and | Coinbase. Since the release is from the government, I | think that makes him the antagonist? | bulbosaur123 wrote: | Where is the fraud? They can't charge with insider trading, | because insider trading does not apply to currencies or | cryptocurrencies. | romellem wrote: | According to the [indictment][1], they violated [18 USC SS | 1343][2], when they: participated in a scheme | to deprive Coinbase of its exclusive use of | confidential business information related to Coinbase's | plans to list certain crypto assets on its exchanges | | [1]: https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/press- | release/file/1521186... [2]: | https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1343 | kkielhofner wrote: | I have a friend in federal law enforcement that deals with | crypto and financial crimes. He explains it like this: | | "First, I need to get a 65 year old Federal prosecutor to | understand what this case is about. Then, they need to be able | to potentially argue the case in court and to a jury that | almost always has no idea what any of this means." | | He goes on to say that wire fraud is essentially a universal | catch-all charge that distills the crux/burden of the case to | two facts: | | 1) They committed fraud. | | 2) They touched a computer while doing it. | | These two points are much easier to argue, prove, and most | importantly get a jury to understand (and convict on). Even | though most federal prosecutions result in a plea deal of some | sort the simplicity of arguing and proving wire fraud results | in a much higher rate of success for a favorable plea deal | and/or the threat of going to trial with a crime that's so easy | to prove. | rmbyrro wrote: | > each of which [wire fraud and wire fraud conspiracy] carries | a maximum sentence of 20 years. | | So they're looking at maximum 40 years. One of them is charged | with two counts on each, so 80 years max. | | It's not a light deal... | [deleted] | [deleted] | Tengiono wrote: | Soooooo people are slowly realizing that a regulated market might | actually became regulated for a reason? | | I wouldn't mind all of this cryptoshit if it wouldn't be for the | co2 and gpu/chip shortage... | c7DJTLrn wrote: | Unpopular opinion incoming: the concept of insider trading is | stupid, and even more stupid applied to cryptocurrency. People | will always find ways to profit from privileged information. The | least careful ones will just keep getting caught while the most | careful reap the rewards and get away with it. Cryptocurrency | isn't even a regulated asset, how can someone be 'insider | trading' it? | | What insider trading really means is a middle class person | profiting in a way the ruling class don't like. Apparently it's | legal for Congress to insider trade. It's legal for CEOs to | insider trade. | ouid wrote: | trading on information asymmetry is usually referred to as | fraud. insider trading is just a subcategory that is relatively | easy to prosecute and prevent | karpierz wrote: | By this same logic, fraud shouldn't be a crime. People will | always find a way to profit by misleading people, and the most | careful ones will reap the rewards and get away with it. | skidd0 wrote: | Knowing privileged info and acting on it as an individual is | not he same as intentionally misleading another person. | pavlov wrote: | In a market that promises information symmetry, there's no | difference between the two. | Dracophoenix wrote: | That's incorrect. Due diligence is expected of any person | who enters a contract. This forum was recently poopooing | Musk for violating his purchase contract even though he | may have had legitimate concerns of Twitter keeping | secret its number of bot accounts. If you want to make | the case that the ignorance of one party is sufficient to | accuse the other of fraud, the burden of proof is on you. | tylersmith wrote: | When you gain that information under the understanding you | won't abuse it, solely for the purposes of abusing it, you | have committed fraud. | j0hnyl wrote: | Who is the victim here? | munificent wrote: | It is a shared good that benefits all participants for a | market to be efficient. Insider trading reduces market | efficiency. | siftrics wrote: | It literally does the opposite. It pushes the price in | the direction it's going to go when the information is | made public. | munificent wrote: | You're only thinking of the first-order effect. | | If insider trading is allowed then, yes, those who have | access to inside information can trade on it more | efficiently. But it also _highly incentivizes market | participants to hide information_. In a world where | insider trading is allowed, anyone who has access to | inside information can now personally monetize it as long | as that information does not get out to the wider market. | | You're basically paying people to manufacture information | asymmetry. As an emergent effect, that does not lead to | the widely available information needed for a market to | perform efficiently. | siftrics wrote: | How will they profit if the information never becomes | public? | idiotsecant wrote: | The victim of insider trading is everyone else | participating in the market that is not insider trading. | Which, given the widespread reliance on 401k's for most of | our accumulated wealth, is all of us. | j0hnyl wrote: | But crypto is not an equity and your 401k is not tied up | in it at all? | tylersmith wrote: | Coinbase. It's in the indictment. | j0hnyl wrote: | Maybe I'm dense... but how does Coinbase lose money from | this? | valvar wrote: | >Apparently it's legal for Congress to insider trade. It's | legal for CEOs to insider trade. | | I'm pretty sure it isn't. | drexlspivey wrote: | https://nypost.com/2022/07/16/paul-pelosi-buys-tech-chip- | sto... | snarf21 wrote: | The point is that they can be caught and then prosecuted. It | won't stop it but it makes it harder. People will always break | the law. The point is to make that harder and have a punishment | for doing so. We need better laws to prevent lawmakers from | profiting as well. | judge2020 wrote: | > Cryptocurrency isn't even a regulated asset, how can someone | be 'insider trading' it? | | Because the FTC says it's a regulated asset and they have the | world's largest country to enforce this with courts and police | action. | KoftaBob wrote: | For a free market to have "perfect competition", one of the | requirements is that "Buyers have complete or perfect | information (in the past, present, and future) about the | product being sold and the prices charged by each firm." | | Information asymmetry is a big factor acting against a free | market that is "perfectly competitive". In the US, commerce | regulations are more or less meant to to push the market as | close as possible to this theoretical state of perfect | competition. | | Insider trading, front running, or any similar forms, directly | act against this goal and increase information asymmetry. | | https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/perfectcompetition.asp | endisneigh wrote: | This logic is dumb. Scams also should be legal I guess? As well | as theft. | c7DJTLrn wrote: | Never said it should be legal. I said it was stupid as a | concept. | | The alternative is to reform the market so it's a level | playing field for everyone regardless of what you know. | avisser wrote: | > reform the market so it's a level playing field for | everyone regardless of what you know | | You want to take away the power of knowledge? Good luck in | human society. (Honestly, on its face, this is an | incredibly naive take.) | InefficientRed wrote: | The solution to the issues you identify, which are real, is to | improve the equitabiliy of the US justice system and strengthen | laws against insider trading. | | _> The least careful ones will just keep getting caught while | the most careful reap the rewards and get away with it._ | | The clearance rate for homicide in the USA hovers somewhere | between 50% and 70% most years, and the clearance rate for rape | in the US is much lower at 32% in 2018. | | _> What insider trading really means is a middle class person | profiting in a way the ruling class don 't like. Apparently | it's legal for Congress to insider trade. It's legal for CEOs | to insider trade._ | | Wealth is probably also helpful if you want to get away with | rape or murder. | | Also, insider trading is bad. | rideontime wrote: | Gee, if people will get away with crimes anyway, why bother | making anything illegal? | ajross wrote: | The accused was using their access within Coinbase to front run | trades and announcements. That's not "middle class" trading | under any reasonable definition and I can't imagine why you | think it should be legal. | | How would any market function if the market makers are allowed | to cheat with impunity. | idiotsecant wrote: | No, insider trading is clearly not 'a middle class person | profiting in a way the ruling class don't like' - it's using | information you have that most of the market doesn't in order | to take money from them. The answer to wealthy people being | able to get away with insider trading easier is not to throw | the baby out with the bathwater and say that all insider | trading is fine, it's to actually enforce insider trading laws. | It's not some impossible task to do a better job enforcing | those rules, it's just not popular with the people who | (shocking) make money by exploiting this kind of information | asymmetry. If we decided to make it a policy priority tomorrow, | the problem would be much, much smaller. | c7DJTLrn wrote: | Insider trading laws don't mean anything. Person X can send | encrypted messages to person Y who lives half way around the | world to make a trade and they will be near impossible to | discover unless person X is surveilled. Even then, person Y | can just get away with it. | mtoner23 wrote: | Just because you can get away with a crime doesnt mean its | not a real crime | c7DJTLrn wrote: | That's not my point. Insider trading is so _easy_ that | anybody with privileged information can do it and even | get away with it if they 're cautious. Instead of working | tirelessly just to catch the sloppy 1% we should reform | the market so that nobody has an advantage because of | what they know. | [deleted] | jonhohle wrote: | Re: congress, I think there should be a public fund that | mirrors the trades of reps and senators and a platform that | enforces their trades happen concurrently with public funds. | The Pelosi's seem to have impeccable market timing that, I'm | sure coincidentally, seems to correlate with policy votes. | | Certainly, elected officials working for our best interest | would want to share their success with their constituents. | pavlov wrote: | The essence of the cryptocurrency narrative is laid bare here. | Sure, maybe it looks like it's scamming desperate people out of | their life savings, but ignore that, really it's just a middle | class person profiting in a way that the ruling class doesn't | like! Why do you hate the middle class getting rich? You must | be in league with the globalist bankers. | woodruffw wrote: | A variation of this comment is made on HN whenever insider | trading comes up, leaving me no recourse but to post the same | response every time: insider trading is criminalized _not least | because_ it is corrosive to public trust in financial | institutions. | | Your examples (Congress, CEOs) _demonstrate_ this: main street | investors have overwhelmingly lost faith in those institutions | over the last two generations. The solution isn 't to race to | the bottom; it's to make insider trading _universally_ illegal. | mtoner23 wrote: | This is a psycho take. We banned insider trading. Allowing | insider trading would obviously help the ruling class. CEOs | cannot insider trade. And obviously we should just ban congress | to trade stocks. | c7DJTLrn wrote: | >CEOs cannot insider trade | | Well, they do. All the time. And they get away with it. | xsmasher wrote: | Most CEOs can not sell stock without announcing it well | ahead of time, or during scheduled periods. | | What form does this insider trading take? | mikeyouse wrote: | One perk of a public blockchain is that crimes like these are | more transparent! A Twitter user 'discovered' the fraud a few | months ago: | | https://twitter.com/cobie/status/1513874972552355846 | Ergo19 wrote: | As it turns out, a distributed immutable ledger is quite useful | for investigators. | cuteboy19 wrote: | The person was lazy. There are many ways to obfuscate this even | when the ledger is public | hamter wrote: | yeah but it was private and presumably a pretty limited | number of people knew about it at the time which narrows down | the number of potential candidates pretty considerably. | dvt wrote: | There are so many other ways to do this that are infinitely | harder to track. Suppose token X is going to hockey stick. | You can short a derivative that shorts X. You can long a | derivative that longs X. You can leverage a lending | protocol that contains X. Etc. | | "Buying X when X will go up" has got the be the most | unsophisticated way possible one can leverage insider | information. Not to mention a basically guaranteed way to | get caught. | hackernewds wrote: | How would one do this? | | you're right in that, the illusion of transparency actually | gives the sophisticated players cover. | wmf wrote: | If he used different wallets to buy different coins then | the correlation might not have been noticed. Buying coins | right before they're listed on Coinbase is still suspicious | but it would have been less suspicious at least. | pcwalton wrote: | The indictment describes the numerous ways in which the | perpetrator managed to obfuscate the insider trading. It | didn't stop the USG from finding him and prosecuting him. | tempsy wrote: | just because it's available doesn't mean it's trivial to figure | out. it does actually take effort to find something like this. | capableweb wrote: | That specific thing is kind of trivial to check though. | Download the full chain, check which addresses has exactly | the same list of tokens as the list was published by | Coinbase, check which ones received the tokens shortly before | it was announced. | tempsy wrote: | yes true but you still have to be intentional about what it | is you're searching for. | caiomassan wrote: | with some effort the search can be automated. | yayitswei wrote: | Moral judgements aside, how is what Ishan Wahi did legally | different than Nancy Pelosi purchasing millions worth of Nvidia | stock ahead of the CHIPS Act vote? Is it a private/public sector | difference? | danso wrote: | Thought this was a repost of the DOJ charges last month against | the former product manager who knew about NFT listings [0], but | that was OpenSea. I guess this Coinbase incident technically | counts as "First Ever Cryptocurrency Insider Trading" scheme, | even though it's common to conflate "crypto" with NFTs and coins | these days | | [0] "Former OpenSea employee charged in digital asset insider | trading scheme " https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31584937 | jrochkind1 wrote: | I am shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here! ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-07-21 23:00 UTC)