[HN Gopher] SEC charges crypto entrepreneur Justin Sun and his c...
___________________________________________________________________
SEC charges crypto entrepreneur Justin Sun and his companies for
fraud
Author : VagueMag
Score : 153 points
Date : 2023-03-22 19:57 UTC (3 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.sec.gov)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.sec.gov)
| code_biologist wrote:
| There's currently US congressional hearings going on about
| cryptocurrency regulation. This is admittedly from a very pro-
| crypto source, but great video overview of the most recent
| testimony: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xohK2W07F0Q
|
| I'm very very glad for any consumer protection, but it does come
| across like the SEC is setting up a narrative of crypto risk as a
| reason to repress transactions between it and the traditional
| banking system.
| smackeyacky wrote:
| Is this one of those "self aware wolf" situations?
| cal5k wrote:
| The revelation that FDIC (allegedly) forced Signature's
| acquirer to divest of cash holdings from crypto companies is
| another bit of evidence that anti-crypto regulatory activism is
| a very real thing.
|
| Which is quite silly because crypto is still small peanuts
| compared to the bank failures that happened recently.
| ForHackernews wrote:
| You mean the bank failures where good regulations and
| government intervention mean that depositors aren't out a
| cent? _Those_ bank failures?
|
| I'm not sure this is quite the example you think it is...
| paxys wrote:
| I don't see the "anti-crypto regulatory activism" you are
| calling out. If FDIC is bailing out a bank and its
| depositors, that too well beyond its insurance limit, it
| absolutely has to ensure that the bank is not going to
| continue to gamble with customer funds.
|
| Heck "no customer deposits going into crypto" should be a
| hard requirement to be eligible for FDIC insurance.
| vkou wrote:
| Being a crypto-focused bank carries most of the same risks as
| being a startup-focused bank (But worse), and in case anyone
| missed the news the other week, one of those just exploded
| with what could have been a much bigger hole on its balance
| sheet had the FDIC waited.
| pavlov wrote:
| Setting up a narrative? Did the SEC orchestrate FTX and all the
| other crypto failures?
|
| They're finally taking steps to actively protect retail
| investors. This should have happened after the ICO boom of
| 2017. Nothing of value would have been lost if crypto had been
| unbanked the past five years.
| cypress66 wrote:
| The kind of protection people want: this exchange is not
| going to steal my funds
|
| The kind of "protection" regulators want: you can't buy or
| use crypto
| pavlov wrote:
| The sad truth is that all the exchanges are going to steal
| your funds. Some of them just go about it in more
| sophisticated ways, like Coinbase paying out billions in
| stock-based compensation while losing money.
| piqi wrote:
| > The sad truth is that all the exchanges are going to
| steal your funds.
|
| > like Coinbase paying out billions in stock-based
| compensation while losing money
|
| I really wish people put more effort into arguing their
| side in these discussions. Your point is absurd and lazy.
|
| [public company] pays some % of employee salary in stock
| >> while "losing money" >> ??? >> customer's property is
| stolen.
|
| > Did the SEC orchestrate FTX and all the other crypto
| failures
|
| FTX's problems were amplified by being unregulated,
| outside the US. The overwhelming majority were not US
| residents. The SEC didn't have jurisdiction over their
| International firm. The US version of FTX was handled
| very differently, but supposedly co-mingled funds. They
| FAILED to protect US residents by not shutting down the
| US version. They could have gave warnings about the
| international firm, instead of working so closely with
| FTX's founder.
|
| As usual, lots of hand-waving from crypto detractors. You
| have a clear bias. Sadly, when enough people share a
| bias, truth and facts are irrelevant. There's a lot to
| criticize about in crypto. No need to make up irrelevant
| associations.
| pavlov wrote:
| When Coinbase files for bankruptcy, crypto deposits will
| be at the back of the line. They are unsecured creditors.
| The company itself says that: https://www.bloomberg.com/n
| ews/articles/2022-05-11/coinbase-...
|
| Coinbase executives will have enjoyed years of massive
| pay days selling stock pumped up with customer money. The
| customers who assumed the money in their accounts is
| protected like with a bank will be wiped out.
| piqi wrote:
| > When Coinbase files for bankruptcy, crypto deposits
| will be at the back of the line. They are unsecured
| creditors.
|
| I'm aware. This has nothing to do with your point about
| "stealing" deposits like other exchanges (e.g. FTX), and
| is irrelevant to stock-based compensation. It contributes
| nothing to the discussion. More noise to encourage others
| to feel safe that their bias is well liked.
|
| > Coinbase executives will have enjoyed years of massive
| pay days selling stock
|
| More irrelevant and false points. The company has only
| been public since April 2021. Not even two years. You are
| attempting to frame them as fat cat wall street types
| purposefully driving the company into the ground at
| customers' expense.
|
| Somehow you extrapolate this to "all exchanges" when
| Coinbase is the only publicly-traded exchange.
|
| remember that Coinbase was audited by the SEC before
| going public, and is one of the oldest exchanges. If any
| exchange is safe, it's Coinbase. The problem is the SEC
| doesn't give clear direction.
|
| Anybody that feels the SEC will "protect" them by forcing
| coinbase into bankruptcy is welcome to move their assets
| on-chain. Many people advocate for that.
|
| Again, I'm highlighting how lazy and absurd your argument
| is.
| pavlov wrote:
| It doesn't seem like you know what your argument is.
|
| _> "If any exchange is safe, it 's Coinbase"_
|
| Ok, so other exchanges are worse.
|
| _> "Somehow you extrapolate this to 'all exchanges'"_
|
| You just told me the other exchanges are worse.
|
| _> "You are attempting to frame them as fat cat wall
| street types purposefully driving the company into the
| ground at customers ' expense"_
|
| It doesn't have to be purposeful. At the rate Coinbase is
| piling up losses, it will eventually be bankrupt, and
| executives will have accumulated billions while customers
| will lose billions. The SEC isn't going to force a
| bankruptcy; Coinbase's own poor management seems to be
| doing it.
|
| _> "... is welcome to move their assets on-chain. Many
| people advocate for that."_
|
| Oh, so you agree with me that nobody should use crypto
| exchanges in the first place. Because they will lose your
| money.
| cypress66 wrote:
| Thus the regulation so exchanges have to prove they have
| all the funds and aren't doing anything funny with it...
| stanleydrew wrote:
| There are a number of obvious counterexamples to this,
| Coinbase's continued existence being just one.
| Osiris wrote:
| They just got a Wells notice:
|
| https://www.reuters.com/legal/coinbase-issued-wells-
| notice-b...
| greenyoda wrote:
| HN disucssion of that:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35267407
| pessimizer wrote:
| The kind of protection people want: their in high-risk
| investments being protected as if they were in low-risk
| investments. They also want to eat cakes but still have
| those same cakes.
| kerblang wrote:
| Whoa celebrity charges too. You just knew Jake Paul had his hand
| in so much bad crypto he was gonna get nailed eventually. I
| suppose Coffeezilla will struggle to suppress the glee.
|
| Edit:
|
| > With the exception of Cortez Way and Mahone, the celebrities
| charged today agreed to pay a total of more than $400,000 in
| disgorgement, interest, and penalties to settle the charges,
| without admitting or denying the SEC's findings
|
| Meh ok pfft
| yunohn wrote:
| > without admitting or denying the SEC's findings
|
| I've never understood why this loophole of "non admission of
| guilt" exists in our legal systems.
| CaptainNegative wrote:
| It allows one to settle a civil manner without self-
| incriminating if the same act is also criminal. This grants
| more flexibility to civil procedure without overstepping
| fifth amendment bounds.
| pessimizer wrote:
| > This grants more flexibility
|
| Do we need that flexibility? The flexibility to extract a
| settlement from guilty people without an acknowledgement of
| guilt seems to be a worthless prize unless we're enforcing
| legislation for revenue's sake. I wouldn't complain about
| that just because it seems venal, I really find it silly
| because the amount of revenue is minuscule irt the budget.
| themitigating wrote:
| What's the value of marking someone as guilty? The fine
| is a punishment.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| It exists in the civil (but not criminal) justice system so
| that civil disputes can be resolved without the parties
| making admissions that could be used against them in separate
| litigation (including, especially, criminal process, with its
| higher standard of proof and potentially more severe personal
| consequences.)
|
| Given the overlap between torts and crimes, it would be much
| longer and more painful to resolve tort cases if the settling
| part might have to admit an act that was also a crime.
| schoen wrote:
| In some jurisdictions, it also exists, partly for a similar
| reason, in the criminal justice system.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nolo_contendere
| paulpauper wrote:
| I hate it too. It allows people to engage in borderline fraud
| knowing that if they get caught they pay a fine and keep some
| of the ill-gotten gains anyway. Like a get out of jail free
| card. Worst comes to worse, you settle and admit no
| wrongdoing and pay fine. Best case scenario, you avoid the
| dragnet and nothing happen, so you keep scamming. Either way,
| you avoid jail.
| adoxyz wrote:
| To protect the wealthy.
|
| Pay a small fine that represents a tiny portion of your ill-
| gotten gains and move on without any repercussions.
| Alupis wrote:
| > To protect the wealthy.
|
| Hardly.
|
| The SEC cannot say you are guilty without proving it within
| the bounds of the legal system. This "non admission of
| guilt" is a way to sidestep a lengthy, costly legal process
| and get a result for the impacted parties sooner rather
| than much _much_ later.
| joecool1029 wrote:
| Saves time and money for all involved parties. It's
| literally like a parking ticket in this sector. Years
| back I had clients who were penny stock promoters and
| every one of their sites had to have a disclaimer which
| if you clicked and read listed how much and from who they
| were paid for each promotion. That's all it would have
| taken for them to avoid this fine even as grimy as the
| industry is.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > The SEC cannot say you are guilty
|
| Pretty much ends there. The SEC can say you are civilly
| liable, and they can assess fines in some situations and
| initiate civil litigation in others based on that.
|
| But if they think you are guilty, that's an issue they
| hand off to the Justice Department.
| Alupis wrote:
| We can split hairs all day regarding exactly who brings
| charges or whatever - but it doesn't matter. In basic
| terms:
|
| If the SEC says you are liable or guilty in any way for
| anything, you can contest it via the legal system. That's
| what the legal system is for...
|
| Again, this "non admission of guilt" sidesteps
| _everything_ and cuts straight to the end result.
|
| In this specific case, it literally means the SEC either
| felt their case wasn't strong enough to guarantee an
| outcome, or litigating the case would become exceedingly
| costly and unproductive - again without a guarantee of an
| outcome.
|
| "Non admission of guilt" payments guarantee a speedy
| outcome. That is the entire point.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > Again, this "non admission of guilt" sidesteps
| everything and cuts straight to the end result.
|
| It's a settlement agreement, and, yes, that's the whole
| point - they resolve a situation subject to civil
| litigation without litigation, but leaving the settling
| party no worse off than if they had fought and had the
| agreement contents instead imposed as a remedy. Requiring
| admissions as part of a settlement would not do that,
| settling would then in many cases be _worse_ than losing.
| Alupis wrote:
| We're saying the same thing, even if you write it more
| elegantly than I.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| Yeah, sorry I kind of snapshotted the last one and
| thought you were taking issue with the short-circuiting
| rather than merely describing it.
| pessimizer wrote:
| Is SEC enforcement even revenue positive/profitable? The
| "result for the impacted parties" is a pretext,
| especially if we intentionally and carefully preserve the
| ability to continue to reoffend in the exact same way.
| themitigating wrote:
| "Ok so you can either go to trial OR just be guilty now and
| get punished, what a deal right?"
| el_nahual wrote:
| Because otherwise you force the innocent to go through a
| lengthy (and expensive) investigation that is not necessary
| for the guilty (who would be ok with paying a fine)!
|
| "I didn't do it, but I'd rather pay the fine than go to
| court" is a perfectly reasonable outcome.
| notahacker wrote:
| Presumably for the same reason it's more efficient to let
| people agree to pay parking fines up front rather than go to
| the extra time and expense of court for the sake of seeing
| whether they'll agree to say the word "guilty" or not. The
| SEC has higher priorities than sullying the name of Lindsay
| Lohan and Soulja Boy, and fining them substantially more than
| they got paid is ample deterrent.
| vasco wrote:
| > substantially more
|
| I was curious, so I checked Jake Paul:
|
| > Respondent shall, within 20 days of the entry of this
| Order, pay disgorgement of $25,019, prejudgment interest of
| $1,811, and a civil money penalty in the amount of $75,057
| to the Securities and Exchange Commission
|
| Jake Paul was paid $25k for a tweet and was ordered to pay
| back a bit over $100k. Only other restriction is he can't
| be paid for anything related to crypto in the next 3 years.
| Paying back the original money + 3x as fine seems
| reasonable I guess.
| tobyjsullivan wrote:
| It's all relative, perhaps.
|
| It might be different if anybody believed these
| celebrities were actively trying to defraud and harm
| people.
|
| The reality is more likely that these people are
| effectively human billboards. People pay them to read a
| script, and they read it. Each week a different product,
| different script, same deal.
|
| So they got suckered into reading an illegal script. They
| get penalized (rightly) but it doesn't necessarily need
| to be extreme.
|
| And now the SEC gets to show off their win using the same
| billboards.
| pessimizer wrote:
| I'm pretty sure that the last time I paid a parking ticket,
| I had the option to check a box that indicated that I was
| guilty, or the option to go to court. I did not get the
| option to pay the fine, but not to be recognized as guilty.
| [deleted]
| ljhsiung wrote:
| >> The SEC simultaneously charged the following eight celebrities
| for illegally touting TRX and/or BTT without disclosing that they
| were compensated for doing so and the amount of their
| compensation.
|
| * Lindsay Lohan
|
| * Jake Paul
|
| * DeAndre Cortez Way (Soulja Boy)
|
| * Austin Mahone
|
| * Michele Mason (Kendra Lust)
|
| * Miles Parks McCollum (Lil Yachty)
|
| * Shaffer Smith (Ne-Yo)
|
| * Aliaune Thiam (Akon)
|
| I had to doubletake. Never did I ever think I'd see this
| permutation of celebrities in an SEC report.
| hn_throwaway_99 wrote:
| And a perfect snapshot for what a steaming pile of BS all this
| crypto-hucksterism was in the first place.
|
| I admit, I don't understand humans. I'm just trying to
| comprehend how anyone would think it a good idea to buy a token
| because any one of these celebrities hawked it.
| thefounder wrote:
| It's just FOMO. You surely experienced it until now. It's
| "irrational" because people make many irrational(emotional)
| decisions. Sometimes it pays off to ride the wave but we all
| know that most will not make it...however the potential
| upside is too great to "miss" it...until you lose.
| komali2 wrote:
| I bet you can think of some irrational things you've done in
| the last few years. I'd be curious what they might be.
|
| Let's see, for me... Well any time I got games in a steam
| sale recently, my backlog is huge and I don't have time
| anyway. Any time I spend on Twitter, I know I don't enjoy how
| I feel after. Plenty of times I had irrational excuses for
| why I didn't have to go to the gym on a given day. Made a
| batch of really good ice cream despite trying to lose weight.
| Etc.
|
| When I was younger I made some irrational decisions in
| stocks, now I don't anymore, I think if you get burned enough
| maybe that's what it takes? I too often wonder why people
| seem to need to "learn the hard way." For me, if a friend
| gets in a car accident, I listen to how it happened and make
| sure to never repeat their mistake, triple for motorcycling.
| But maybe its domain specific in that regard? Some people are
| good at being more rational in some areas rather than others?
| di456 wrote:
| Humans have a soft spot for snake oil. Always have, always
| will.
|
| "If it sounds too good to be true" vs "but everyone else is
| doing it"
| jallen_dot_dev wrote:
| It's simple: they thought they could later sell it for more.
| Celebrities hawking it is "bullish" because other people
| (suckers) will see the hype and want to buy their bags.
| Unfortunately for them, they were the suckers.
| goldenkey wrote:
| A lot of it is young kids or college students with
| undeveloped brains and a lack of good guidance. Then a bunch
| is desperate needy or greedy folks who are thinking
| impulsively.
| jkubicek wrote:
| it's also just plain advertising. When the celebrities
| listed in these charges say that they're buying NFTs, a
| whole lot of people are going to see that and notice.
|
| The number of people that buy an NFT because Soulja Boy
| bought one is probably pretty small. The number of people
| who buy NFTs because "everyone else is" is much much
| larger.
| pavlov wrote:
| Yes, in advertising terms these endorsements are not
| tactical but strategic. You want to create an ambience
| where people sense that everyone successful is now
| getting into crypto/NFTs. That kind of diffuse group
| pressure is much harder to consciously analyze than "do I
| want to buy this thing because Soulja Boy told me to?" --
| and thus much more effective over time.
|
| Crypto seems to have been particularly powerful at
| preying on women and minorities who felt like they're
| missing out with mainstream finance. This kind of highly
| focused influencer marketing within communities must have
| been a major contributor to its uptake.
| nradov wrote:
| Is that really true? When I was in college some years ago I
| didn't fall for any scams and few of my classmates did
| either. Most of us barely had money for beer and textbooks,
| so there wasn't much to scam from us in the first place.
| Has the situation changed?
| tmpz22 wrote:
| If you're an E-list celebrity on TMZ you're a B-list on Cameo I
| guess.
| Animats wrote:
| The last group of celebrities to get in trouble with the SEC
| started with Kim Kardashian, who endorsed Etherium Max without
| disclosing it was a paid endorsement.
|
| Then there's the whole Guy Oseary/Yuga Labs/BAYC promotion
| scam.[1] That's in litigation. Short version: all those
| celebrities who announced that they'd bought Bored Ape NFT's
| didn't have to pay for them.
|
| [1] https://variety.com/2022/digital/news/bored-ape-yacht-
| club-c...
| miohtama wrote:
| Technically Kardashian disclosed it with #ad tag, but because
| it was settled outside the court, we do not know if this is
| sufficient disclosure.
| arthurcolle wrote:
| Floyd Mayweather was also boosting Ethereum Max at Bitcoin 2021
| in Miami - When he said "maybe one day there'll be a better
| crypto than BTC... like Ethereum Max" immediately the crowd
| started booing him (expected, at a BTC conf), pretty funny
|
| I wonder how he managed to slip through!
| thowland wrote:
| It's not clear that the SEC has jurisdiction here; there doesn't
| seem to be a bright line test deciding if crypto is a security or
| a commodity. This behavior might be better regulated by the FTC
| than the SEC.
| arcticbull wrote:
| Sure there is, it's the Howey Test and the SEC has a whole
| publication on how to apply it to crypto. Fun fact, it's
| probably safe to assume that any ICO is a securities offering.
| [1]
|
| This is a case of "there is a bright line but the community
| doesn't like where they painted it, so they pretend there isn't
| one."
|
| [1] https://www.sec.gov/corpfin/framework-investment-contract-
| an...
| peyton wrote:
| The CFTC disagrees [1]. Hardly a bright line.
|
| [1]: https://decrypt.co/123032/cftc-chair-says-ethereum-is-a-
| comm...
| arcticbull wrote:
| He would say that because he wants jurisdiction.
|
| His argument appears to be "let's just sunk-cost our way
| through instead of actually doing the correct thing."
|
| > "It's been listed on CFTC exchanges for quite some time,
| and for that reason," said Behnam, who argued that it
| creates a "direct jurisdictional hook" for the agency to
| police both ETH's derivatives market and underlying market.
|
| Either way they're literally only talking about ETH, which
| is again, clearly a security as following their framework,
| nothing else has a long history of being listed on a CFTC
| exchange. But I digress.
| peyton wrote:
| I feel like you're painting good-faith disagreement as
| "community pretending there isn't a bright red line" or
| "he would say that because he wants jurisdiction," so I
| don't think there's more to talk about.
| pessimizer wrote:
| There's no basis for arguing about your feelings. Your
| emotions are yours.
| VagueMag wrote:
| The SEC's major focus on wash trading in this complaint might
| have some interesting implications for the broader crypto
| ecosystem.
| brutusurp wrote:
| Been waiting for this since Tron was released.
| [deleted]
| mavu wrote:
| Mhhmm, is it popcorn time yet?
| [deleted]
| javier123454321 wrote:
| Honestly, most (if not all with the exception of bitcoin) of the
| 'crypto' projects function effectively like a startup with the
| coin as the stock. There are some differences from securities,
| but mostly similarities. You are buying something with the hope
| that the development team will deliver on promised value in the
| future. This will at least clarify the regulatory landscape going
| forward.
| Animats wrote:
| That's more like a Kickstarter.
|
| The number of crypto projects that ever turned into a
| profitable enterprise for the investors by doing something
| outside the crypto space seems to be near zero.
| vasco wrote:
| Is there even a single project that qualifies under those
| requirements?
| mjr00 wrote:
| Except with a startup or a company's stock, you ostensibly care
| that what the company is building or doing could potentially
| have value in the future. With the crypto projects over the
| past few years, it's purely been about whether or not you hop
| in early enough in the pyramid to resell your tokens to a
| greater fool before it collapses.
| Clubber wrote:
| It's like a company "Stocks, Inc" that just issues their own
| stocks as a product. When you put it that way, it definitely
| sounds suspect.
| mjburgess wrote:
| Yes: there is no product.
| 1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote:
| Will Signal be next.
|
| https://www.theverge.com/22872133/signal-cryptocurrency-paym...
| stusmall wrote:
| Is this the first example of someone getting charged for wash
| trading in the cryptoworld? It was my understanding it was
| common, but unsavory, for new tokens to do this to artificially
| pump their volume up.
| pwb25 wrote:
| It's so funny how SEC think they can just walk around and charge
| anyone in the world with some made up law
|
| imagine chinese SEC or egyptian SEC doing that to americans
| iLoveOncall wrote:
| First, all laws are made up.
|
| Second, the Chinese SEC or the Egyptian SEC can very well
| charge Americans with whatever they want. It's just that those
| Americans probably don't care enough about China or especially
| Egypt to abide by the punishment they receive and would rather
| not do business with those countries and never set foot in it.
|
| I, iLoveOncall, am hereby charging you with the crime of
| idiotic comment, for which you will receive the death penalty
| by ball slapping. Surrender yourself to the Republic of
| iLoveOncallandia to receive your punishment.
|
| It's literally the same thing.
| pwb25 wrote:
| exactly they can on paper, but no one will care or be
| expected to care. that's what the ridicolous difference is
| xtracto wrote:
| They can do it... it's as if Iran's government prosecutor body
| charged someone living in the US of "not wearing a burka" or
| whatever crazy law. They can definitely do it, and they can try
| to move strings to get to them. Their success will depend on
| their power to enforce it and coerce other countries to
| surrender the person(s).
|
| It's like the news we have seen in the last days, of different
| countries committing to arrest Putin for whatever crimes.
|
| But yeah, I agree with your overall sentiment: This is a USA
| legal system/government arm (SEC) playing "world police". They
| should just tag Tron and related cryptos as "sanctioned/illegal
| schemes" and prosecute anyone in their country who
| uses/operates them. Anything else is just meddle with other
| countries' citizens.
| smcl wrote:
| Was this not the guy who was trying to buy Credit Suisse?
| uticus wrote:
| > The SEC also charged Sun and his companies with fraudulently
| manipulating the secondary market for TRX through extensive wash
| trading...
|
| 1. How is this detected by the SEC?
|
| 2. Why isn't this something that is easily detectable by the
| average investor?
| csomar wrote:
| justin sun has a rather bad reputation in the crypto industry.
| He was able to sustain his token during all that time, however.
| MomoXenosaga wrote:
| The average "investor" is a gambling addict or financially
| desperate Reddit cryptocurrency poster. They don't care beyond
| NUMBER GO UP and I am certain Justin Sun knows that too.
| xeromal wrote:
| It feels similar to those late note collectible coin programs
| that people buy into.
|
| "Get your pristine 1950 silver eagle collection for 5000$
| before they're all sold out!"
| nickff wrote:
| It looks like at least some of Justin Sun's suspicious behavior
| had been 'detected' by non-regulators some time ago:
| https://cryptoslate.com/justin-sun-backs-ftx-debt-token-fud-...
|
| That was from a quick Google search, so I'm sure there are many
| more accusations. It seems like the SEC has never been the
| 'first' to detect a fraud, and they've frequently ignored ones
| that have been pointed out to them (such as Madoff).
| [deleted]
| Animats wrote:
| > Why isn't this something that is easily detectable by the
| average investor?
|
| Because much crypto trading is just transactions within some
| crypto exchange, and never makes it to the blockchain.
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| Vendors + training
|
| https://www.coindesk.com/business/2020/02/10/inside-chainaly...
|
| https://www.coindesk.com/markets/2019/07/12/irs-confirms-it-...
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-03-22 23:00 UTC)