[HN Gopher] US SEC sues Coinbase, one day after suing Binance ___________________________________________________________________ US SEC sues Coinbase, one day after suing Binance Author : jen20 Score : 493 points Date : 2023-06-06 13:10 UTC (9 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.reuters.com) (TXT) w3m dump (www.reuters.com) | calny wrote: | The actual complaint: | | https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.59... | CodeWriter23 wrote: | Looks like the US Govt is going to eliminate the competition | before replacing US Currency with its own crypto, likely | developed and administered by a third party because the | government sucks at building stuff. | alphanullmeric wrote: | Trust the government fiercely to defend their right to other | people's wallets and prevent individuals from risking their money | how they want. | shrimpx wrote: | Well, if it ends up in the Supreme Court, my bet is this | particular scotus will rule against the "administrative state", | "overreaching" SEC. | mrkramer wrote: | Grace period of unregulated crypto is over. Brace yourself, SEC | is coming! | detrites wrote: | The SEC issues fines. To them it's taking a cut, to Binance | etc, it's operating expenses. | | These "enforcements" are more like protection money paid to | gangsters. The SEC could have created clarity a decade ago. | | It's not in their interest to do so, plain and simple. They are | incentivised financially, to persist in creating a lack of | clarity, and then randomly "enforcing" inconsistently to | extract multi-millions off of effectively approved profits. | | If / when they refer cases to the DoJ, it's different. But, | typically they don't, because typically most of the players | they're going after are doing their best to comply with the | "uncompliable" landscape they are facing. Or - they're FTX. | | And let's just remember that, always. The SEC, effectively, | gave FTX a green light. Maybe the most damaging crypto fail in | history likely an outright fraud, of massive proportions and | where was the SEC? That's what we're dealing with here. | [deleted] | [deleted] | foodjinn wrote: | Also worth pointing out the SEC's involvement in the subprime | mortgage collapse. | menthe wrote: | There is a well-documented public history of Coinbase taunting | the SEC - they had it coming. | | - https://www.coinbase.com/blog/the-sec-has-told-us-it-wants-t... | | - https://www.coinbase.com/blog/coinbase-does-not-list-securit... | | - https://www.coinbase.com/blog/coinbases-staking-services-are... | | - https://www.coinbase.com/blog/we-asked-the-sec-for-reasonabl... | | - https://www.coinbase.com/blog/coinbase-takes-another-formal-... | | - https://www.coinbase.com/blog/coinbase-responds-to-the-secs-... | | Better yet: https://www.coinbase.com/blog/icymi-coinbase-and-the- | sec | ren_engineer wrote: | of course, how dare private citizens not kiss the feet of | unelected government officials. I love when government | institutions take retribution for being "taunted" | pawelduda wrote: | The old good non-compliant taunting | butlerm wrote: | None of those posts except the last looks like taunting the SEC | to me, but rather keeping the public and their customer base in | particular up to date on a live regulatory issue that may | present a risk to their business. That is the type of thing the | SEC _requires_ (at least of publicly traded companies) not | discourages. | nancyhn wrote: | Or that's a well-documented public history of the SEC taunting | Coinbase. | chroma wrote: | If criticizing a regulatory body causes them to go after you, | then that regulatory body is corrupt and should be dismantled | and replaced with something else. | dymk wrote: | Taunt and criticize are two different verbs | jjk166 wrote: | And criticize is the correct one in this instance. | foodjinn wrote: | And neither is justifiable cause for regulatory action. | | I don't think this is the reason the SEC is going after | Coinbase, but frankly I don't believe the SEC is doing any | of this on the behalf of "protecting investors". | jdminhbg wrote: | Don't think "taunt" is the correct verb here, but it | doesn't even matter. Taunting government officials is | protected speech in the US. | [deleted] | jcranmer wrote: | And given the number of cryptocurrency exchanges the SEC has | been suing in the past several days, it is rather unlikely | that the SEC is targeting Coinbase because of Coinbase's | criticisms: had Coinbase said nothing, the SEC would _still_ | be suing Coinbase. | [deleted] | blondie9x wrote: | It took them way to long to act on crypto. The damage was already | done. Trillions of wealth has been destroyed by crypto. | loeg wrote: | Levine has talked about this a bit. It's much easier to be a | harsh regulator after the crash than on the way up. | datadeft wrote: | The end of an era. | seydor wrote: | what era? playing monopoly with bitcoin? good riddance, time to | use it for some real purpose. | soco wrote: | The era of the few crypto billionaires and the crowd of regular | Joe money-losers. Ah, those times. | koonsolo wrote: | Go and take a look at the long term price of bitcoin. How | anyone can lose money in that market is beyond me. | samb1729 wrote: | If everyone is supposed to have made money, where did that | money come from? | koonsolo wrote: | Just because the market cap of Bitcoin is 520.50B, | doesn't mean 520.50B has been invested into it. | | Basically, as long as the price of Bitcoin is >0, more | was won than lost. It's now at 25k, so a lot has been | won. | | So still in another way: if you bought bitcoin with fiat, | your bitcoin now is still worth 25k | soco wrote: | Money is not created out of thin air. There's electricity | to mine, there's funds investing in crypto, there's fiat | used to pay ransoms... All this means real world money got | spent. | DJBunnies wrote: | Unlikely. | danielschonfeld wrote: | [flagged] | meesles wrote: | Considering the EU is unable step up, I think you'll miss the | enemy we knew after all is said and done (if there is a | significant shift in the leading powers). I'm not wearing | rose-tinted glasses about the past (I'm not American), but | the up-and-coming alternatives seem real scary. | WinstonSmith84 wrote: | The EU is the same as the US: pretending to be the land of | free but effectively controlled by interests, driven by | hidden agendas. Some other countries don't try to pretend | to be free nor pretend to work for the people, and maybe | less hypocrisy is not worse (China or India). A healthy | balance of competition between world powers is much | welcomed. | WinstonSmith84 wrote: | logical assumption. There has never been a blockchain era | yet. | wellthisisgreat wrote: | lol I am pretty sure the GP is talking about the era of | crypto swindlers who rode the good ideas of liberty, | financial diversification, and such into the ground and will | all hopefully pay for it | WinstonSmith84 wrote: | Yes, the dollar has been dominating for quite a long time now | and we see the world re-orienting their trade practices, | balancing their reserves towards other currencies, while the US | is left with 2 choices: embrace change or fight it. The | democrats are clearly choosing the latter, curious to see what | the republicans will do. Either way, the US dollar in a decade | or two will become irrelevant beyond US borders. As for America | itself, time will tell. | mindslight wrote: | I would have written this comment 15 years ago, on the heels | of an unnecessarily large military being abused to wage two | poorly thought out elective wars. Continued market arbitrage | away from wasteful US dominance seemed inevitable, just as | the break up of the Soviet Union was. | | Now, after economic integration with China has run its course | and not produced democracy? After Russia's attack on Ukraine | demonstrated that wildly irrational tin-pot dictators still | exist, they had just been contained? It would seem that the | USD empire is more valuable than I gave it credit for - it's | the worst hegemon, except for all the others. | | I still do hold hope of reducing the power of centralized | entities in the long term. But real change like that has to | happen from the bottom up due to fundamental conditions | changing (eg individual adoption of cryptocurrencies), which | is excruciatingly slow. If this is to be the trend, it will | happen over many decades. | | There is certainly the open question of whether China will | surpass the US military and become a world reserve currency | based on the draw of military might alone. But that doesn't | have anything to do with decentralization, rather just a | different centralizer. | | PS treating the diminishing of US power as a foregone | conclusion and framing it as a political question of whether | the Republicans might "embrace change" (ie overtly facilitate | the US's decline) seems like a terribly self-destructive | paradigm. | WinstonSmith84 wrote: | > There is certainly the open question of whether China | will surpass the US military and become a world reserve | currency based on the draw of military might alone. But | that doesn't have anything to do with decentralization, | rather just a different centralizer. | | You're right, but it does have something to do. The US | dollar is the best weapon the USA have at the moment, far | more efficient than all the nukes. When the US dollar will | be treated equal to the Euro or the Yuan or the Yen, the | USA won't have an edge anymore and... will have nothing to | lose anymore. | | That's when possibly we will see a mass adoption of | cryptocurrencies where powerful countries will search to | dominate mining, innovation, etc. As long as we have a | single country policing the world, adoption will be | incredibly slow and mass adoption will not happen unless we | have some visionary politicians ... | | > framing it as a political question of whether the | Republicans might "embrace change" (ie overtly facilitate | the US's decline) seems like a terribly self-destructive | paradigm. | | US dollar is declining, and that will continue, it's not an | "if". Suing every crypto company is not going to help | either way on the long term. It's less about "facilitating | US decline", than whether politicians can look forward, or | will keep looking back. Republicans seem to have a more | open minded approach | moolcool wrote: | I don't think any serious people in the world are considering | the idea that the US would balance their reserves against | cryptocurrency. | WinstonSmith84 wrote: | So 1- I was not referring to cryptocurrencies, crypto | market is way too small anyway 2- I'm referring to every | country _except_ the US, obviously... | | From Middle East to China or even Japan, every country is | reducing their global reserves in dollars, and diversifying | in other (national) currencies. Also, many countries are | trying to conduct trades in other currencies than the US | dollar. | | Basically, I'm just referring to the decline of the US | dollar and that's welcome for everybody except maybe for | the US government. | | https://wolfstreet.com/2023/04/02/status-of-us-dollar-as- | glo... | adamsmith143 wrote: | Always interesting how crypto prices tank after legal action is | announced against exchanges. Isn't the whole point to be | decentralized in the first place? Hard to believe the whole dip | is due to people wanting to get their tokens off the exchanges. | awaythrow483 wrote: | Price is up today | nfRfqX5n wrote: | looks like the price barely changed | adamsmith143 wrote: | ? Bitcoin is down 5% since Binance was sued... | jrm4 wrote: | Well, there is no "whole point," right? You could roughly | divide the crypto world into "true believers" and "people who | just want to get rich." | | The _latter_ overwhelmingly dominate price and volume, and | moreover it 's the "whales," i.e. a relatively small number of | parties. | | I suppose I'm something of a "true believer," but what I may | want or think is best doesn't matter in the face of the working | crypto technology. The incentives are in place and to an extent | we just have to sit back and see what happens. | dontupvoteme wrote: | Curious how authoritarian hackernews is - is this just a knee | jerk reaction to annoying cryptobros? Sounds like a board of | police officers/retired army men right now commenting on how | "that boy had it coming" | timerol wrote: | It's a long-simmering annoyance at the decline of the | cryptocurrency ecosystem: from the really cool technology | underlying Bitcoin, to exciting whitepapers with different | solutions to hard problems on other coins, to intractable | whitepapers designed to create hype for coins that do nothing, | to the clear creation of exchanges as places to gamble, to the | sidelining of anyone in the cryptocurrency world trying to | solve any problem other than "get rich quick", to the collapse | of FTX. | | All through it the definition of a security has been clear, but | Coinbase et al has pretended that the issue is "regulatory | clarity" and not "we are operating as a fking unlicensed | securities exchange in the USA bro". | | Very rarely a cool use case for cryptocurrency will come up, | but the marketing is now entirely "invest and make money!", | which is some combination of tedious and scammy, depending on | who it's coming from. | jmyeet wrote: | Here's my take on crypto: | | 1. Despite any theoretical applications, all applications of | crypto thus far have been to bypass laws. Some of these might be | moral (eg avoiding currency controls in some countries like | Venezuela) but mostly it's just illegal stuff; | | 2. No one is really interested in applications. They're "hodling" | [sic] because of Bitcoin FOMO. They want in on the next Bitcoin. | | 3. Scams and rug pulls are rife in crypto. Taken with (2), this | implies that people who think they're getting rich in crypto are | only going to do so by scamming or rug pulling other people who | will be left holding the bag; | | 4. Despite all the claims about verifiability, somehow the crypto | space still needs strong government intervention to deter and | prosecute scammers, criminals and thieves. That's another big L | for the libertarians and goldbugs-turned-crypto-bros out there; | | 5. NFTs are the next level scam about crypto and really only | exist to sell more crypto; | | 6. A lot of otherwise smart people have fooled themselves into | thinking that their knowledge, skills and experience with some | other area somehow magically translates into finance; | | 7. A whole bunch more snake oil salesmen are happy to sell others | this lie; | | 8. The desire and desperation to get rich by many "hodlers" | causes them to fool themselves into thinking there's any value in | crypto; | | 9. Reversability of transactions and the ability to change the | money supply volume are features not bugs; and | | 10. What underpins the US dollar is, ultimately, the full might | of the US government and military as well as trust. Crypto too is | ultimately still built on trust but has nothing else behind it. | | It actually seemed to me that Coinbase was the one company | operating legitimately. I haven't read the complaint so I'm not | sure how much merit the charges have. We shall see. | strbean wrote: | > 1. Despite any theoretical applications, all applications of | crypto thus far have been to bypass laws. | | Not so: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitcoin_in_El_Salvador | modeless wrote: | The specific crypto tokens they are classifying as securities | are: SOL, ADA, MATIC, FIL, SAND, AXS, CHZ, FLOW, ICP, NEAR, VGX, | DASH, and NEXO. | | Of course they say "not limited to" to hedge their bets, but | those are the ones they specifically mention. This is the exact | "regulatory clarity" Coinbase has been asking for, but the SEC | prefers to sit on their hands for years (while investors are | "harmed") and then sue, rather than actually tell Coinbase what | they think up front. Sure seems self-serving to me, rather than | anything like a genuine interest in protecting investors. | x86x87 wrote: | Hah. Protecting investors. What a bunch of croc. This was never | about protecting investors. If it was they would have issues | the guidance 5 years ago. This is about blowing up crypto in | general by removing the on/off ramps (ie the exchanges). | | Also: mandatory crypto is bad for the environment and it | consumes more power than the whole country of Argentina! /s But | nobody seems to care or talk about how much power crapGPT is | consuming. The future they tell me | mjburgess wrote: | This is such a dangerous attitude. | | The reason regulators have waited years, despite the facts of | the matter being legally obvious, is not wanting to be blamed | for blowing up the whole ponzi house-of-cards. They've waited | until enough such houses blew up on their own, that they feel | "the facts have been demonstrated". | | If you want to know why they didnt "blow up crypto", "five | years ago", its because of you -- and this attitude. | | Without it, vast swathes of online grifts that have ruined | peoeple's lives wouldve been blown out the water by now. | foodjinn wrote: | The SEC had a hand in the subprime mortgage crisis, quite | literally there is no reason to believe they are regulating | on the behalf of anyone except the large banks. They | absolutely are not regulating to help "investors" they are | regulating to protect big banks like JPMC, just like they | did in 08. | mjburgess wrote: | This is genuinely ridiculous. The "big banks" can buy up | and own as much of the crytpo ecosystem as they desire, | and all the "whales" are "institutional billionaires". | | Crypto has, for years, been held by "the elite" -- and | Andreessen et al. are exactly using it as a system to | commit securities fraud. | | The direction of wealth flow in crypto is from late | retail entrants to billionaire major holders who cash out | using late entrants. | | The idea that the SEC, post-collapse-after-collapse, is | here to "protect JP Morgan"... i mean, this is a patent | lie, misdirection, and act of desperation in trying to | set up the SEC as the scapegaot for this exploitative | system's failure. | foodjinn wrote: | I fail to see how that isn't the case when Gensler went | to bat for FTX prior to their collapse in similar fashion | to the way the SEC behaved in 08, refuses to clarify | surrounding the second largest coin in the market, and | then comes down on exchanges after years of refusing to | clarify what is or is not illegal conduct. | | They created a situation in which they can choose winners | and losers and people are surprised that they're viewed | as corrupt? | | Asinine. | mjburgess wrote: | Gensler was taken in by the tech angle -- duped by the | (false) claim that this was a world-changing technical | innovation. He was, for years, convinced that | "revolutionary" blockchain technology was a viable peer- | to-peer accounting ledger for a wide variety of assets. | | This is the problem with this area: lots of finance guys | with no csci experience; lots of csci guys dumb on | finance. | | Anyone who has enough experience of both worlds runs a | mile from all of this, and can see the toxic mixture of | IT hype, finance "collectables mania", and grift. | | The SEC is just catching up to how much the finance | industry has been duped by bros-in-shorts talking about | "algorithms" | foodjinn wrote: | The SEC isn't catching up to it when they've explicitly | refused to clarify to both the people they are trying to | regulate and the lawmakers themselves on what they | determine to be a security. | | The SEC created a situation by which any action could be | deemed criminal and only decided to regulate when it was | politically expedient to do so. | | There is no reason to believe they are doing this on | behalf of protecting investors, because investors have | consistently asked for clarity and the SEC refused to do | so, and are only now going after the large exchanges | after a rash of traditional finance banking failures. | | For all of the criticisms against crypto, there is zero | reason to believe the SEC is operating in good faith | because they have shown time and time again they are not. | mjburgess wrote: | Never have new "technologies" been regulated "on release" | by any government agency, i believe credit cards took ~20 | years. | | The SEC here is acting perhaps _the fastest ever_ to the | development of a new financial instrument. | | The howey test was always clear to everyone invovled. The | whole "SEC hasnt said anything yet" is a line used by | liars to cover-up and distract from their patent fraud -- | which takes place, not coincidently, off-shore. Every | investigation so far has yielded plenty of internal chats | to the effect of 'lol this is illegal lol lol'. No one | here was in the dark, that's why everyone has redflags | out-the-wazoo. | | The background historical context here is also that gov | cannot been seen to stifle new tech, and has to "give it | its fair shot" absent regulation. Or else be blamed for | its failure. | | I think it's frankly obscene after the fraud-after-fraud- | after-fraud that is the entire crypto system, that any | body would pin anything on the SEC. | | This is yet another lie designed to distract form the | last 13 years of failure -- all the crypto system has | done is breed massive amounts of fraud, money laundering, | ransomware and the most industrialised grift in human | history. | | The SEC has not failed here one iota in comparison to | this industrialised con. | modeless wrote: | The whole point of the regulation is to stop it from | blowing up and harming investors. If they wait until after | then they have failed at their job. | rvz wrote: | > Also: mandatory crypto is bad for the environment and it | consumes more power than the whole country of Argentina! /s | But nobody seems to care or talk about how much power crapGPT | is consuming. The future they tell me | | He's right you know: [0] [1]. Cryptocurrencies like Ethereum | moved from proof-of-work to proof-of-stake, eliminating 99% | of their CO2 emissions. [2] There are alternatives to PoW and | they exist today. | | AI (Deep Learning) on the other hand is going to continue to | waste more energy, water, etc has no viable efficient | alternatives in training their deep neural networks without | building more data centers. | | [0] https://gizmodo.com/chatgpt-ai-water-185000-gallons- | training... | | [1] https://www.standard.co.uk/tech/ai-chatgpt-water-usage- | envir... | | [2] https://consensys.net/blog/press-release/ethereum- | blockchain... | thot_experiment wrote: | Deep learning actually provides something of value now, and | the training is in service of seeing if maybe it could do | better in the future. Crypto provides a way to part fools | from their money, and a way to circumvent financial laws. | | Yes, I get that there's "value" to circumventing sanctions | and whatnot, but that's the same sort of value as making | people phone you to cancel a subscription or optimizing CTR | on an ad or whatever. It's not the kind of "value" that | benefits society. | tyre wrote: | Nononononononononononono we don't get to play that game. The | SEC has perfectly clearly communicated for years its regulatory | clarity: most crypto-currencies are obviously securities. | | When Coinbase and others say "regulatory clarity", they _want_ | the answer to be some framework for how they can continue to | sell crypto to everyone /anyone. But that's not the policy! | | Most of these coins are some combination of ponzi schemes, | vaporware, pump-and-dumps, fraud, money laundering, rug pulls, | etc. The SEC's position absolutely protects investors from | getting involved with that crap. | modeless wrote: | That _is_ the policy. The SEC has said that some | cryptocurrencies are OK, like Bitcoin and Ethereum. And | though today they gave a list of some they don 't like, there | are plenty of others that they still refuse to talk about | despite explicit requests. What is the point of being opaque | about it? It's not protecting investors, that's for sure. | Seems more like they just want to be punitive. | TylerE wrote: | New tokens are being spawned faster than the SEC could | possibly do even a cursory analysis of them. | modeless wrote: | Of course. But they could clearly have analyzed more | than, say, two in the past decade before filing suit. | droopyEyelids wrote: | Here's a little thought experiment. | | Let's say a new government organization makes a rule | "You'll get fined if you make a red ball for playing catch" | | You think about it for a while, and decide to make a red | Hecatohedron for playing catch. You start playing catch | with it and if it's ok. The new government org doesn't | reply and eventually fines you. | | Is that government organization being opaque? | transducers wrote: | https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_P._Brooks | | He is apparently BAM CEO (B) of the SEC's Binance lawsuit [0], | and also worked at Coinbase (to setup compliance) [1]. I was | reading up on his activities on his wiki page and rather | impressed. Was a comptroller of the Currency for a while in 2020, | too. He's still sitting on the board of another company that's in | block chains (BitFury [2] does infrastructure) and apparently a | lot of "vision" related stuff [3] | | [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36202663 | | [1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_P._Brooks#Coinbase | | """ After working at Fannie Mae, Brooks was Chief Legal Officer | of Coinbase from 2018 to 2020. Coinbase is an $8 billion Silicon | Valley startup that is one of the largest digital currency | platforms in the world. At Coinbase, he was responsible for the | company's legal, compliance, internal audit, government | relations, and global intelligence groups. """ | | [2]: https://bitfury.com/ | | [3[]: https://www.axelera.ai/ | | I got a chuckle from the "democratizing edge AI" since they are | selling surveillance AI for the edge. Reminded me of Washington | Post's masthead. Are they being ironic? /g | shp0ngle wrote: | Well, there is your regulatory clarity, Coinbase. | johndhi wrote: | Question: is it even possible to register as a security? If you | do, what follows? | | So if SOL for example were to register somewhere, what would they | need to do, and what would I need to do to buy it? | SpicyLemonZest wrote: | There's no fundamental reason it would be impossible. Solana | Labs would need to file a registration statement with the SEC ( | https://www.sec.gov/education/smallbusiness/goingpublic/regi... | ) including among other things a description of its business | practices and audited financial statements. | | Once they did that, you would be able to buy and sell it at any | registered exchange who's willing to list it. Coinbase, maybe, | if they're willing to accept the costs and regulations | involved. | arctek wrote: | Except that it would exclude a raft of non-US citizens then, | i.e. any sanctioned country, Coinbase would also need to | become registered as an ATS and their current settlement and | clearing processes would need to be re-engineered from the | ground up. For all intents and purposes you cannot register a | cryptocurrency with the SEC and then go on trading it | anywhere publicly - it doesn't exist. There's only been a few | projects that managed to avoid this: Enigma for example moved | to a decentralized network and changed their coin over (so it | was magically no longer a security according to the SEC) and | the SEC just fined them and made them issue refunds for the | project raise. | JumpCrisscross wrote: | > _it would exclude a raft of non-US citizens then, i.e. | any sanctioned country_ | | This lays bare the problem with the _status quo_. Wanting | to profit off sanctions busting isn't a sympathetic pitch. | dbmikus wrote: | In some cases, I find it sympathetic. For example, I | don't think it's a clear cut moral resolution that people | should exclude Iran from buying US goods and services, | but they are on the sanctioned list. I supported Obama | dropping sanctions on Iran back when he was president. | | There's a difference between what is legal and what is | moral. For what is moral, there are hardly any absolute | answers. | JumpCrisscross wrote: | > _I don 't think it's a clear cut moral resolution that | people should exclude Iran from buying US goods and | services, but they are on the sanctioned list_ | | Sure. But crypto is an inefficient way to express that | policy preference. And it's difficult to comport claims | of altruistic intent with crypto's financial incentives. | marcell wrote: | Registering a security means basically an IPO. The burden is | very high and is out of reach for crypto startups that have | little revenue and under $1 million in funding. | cultureswitch wrote: | And there we go. The promise of a form of cash outside of USA | government control is terrifying to the USA government. And well, | most other governments too. | | It is pretty obvious that when the USA government goes after | crypto exchanges, what matters is to get the exchange shut down. | The actual justification for doing so is an afterthought. | | I'm torn on the issue of whether dematerialized privacy- | preserving cash (and yeah, I know crypto exchanges had very | little to do with that) is even a good thing to begin with. To me | the strongest argument for it is that the crimes that would be | facilitated by that are already trivial, as long as you're rich | enough. You don't need Monero when you can "sell" a Monet in | exchange for services instead. It is incredibly hypocritical of | governments to complain that privacy-preserving currencies enable | criminals when they have done literally nothing to stop the | numerous convenient ways to launder money that are accessible | only to rich and powerful people. | sealeck wrote: | I think part of it might be that the only use case for which | crypto really works is for drug dealers to safely conduct | transactions. | | I believe in the right to privacy, but I believe in it as an | extension of a personal right to self-expression. Freedom to | practice your religion, to date whomever you want, etc | (provided it doesn't hurt others), sure. Freedom to hold 10^9 | USD secretly so that you don't have to pay tax on it and can | peddle drugs, not really. | gitfan86 wrote: | That is putting the cart before the horse. The USA is not a | libertarian government. Why did anyone think that it was a good | idea to invest in products that would only survive in a | libertarian government? | cultureswitch wrote: | Invest? | | I think investing in crypto is purely based on greater fool | theory. | | Doesn't mean there aren't any legitimate uses for | cryptocurrency, let alone the blockchain technology. | | In this sense, why should Coinbase and a currency exchange | booth in some airport be considered any different? Of course, | Coinbase doesn't quite operate statelessly like that, and to | me that's the issue here. | x86x87 wrote: | Lol. What is the US government? | seydor wrote: | I think it was always 100% clear that cryptocurrencies can't live | within the confines of the laws of a sovereign state. Why people | registered their exchanges along with the rest of the banking | system ? it made zero sense from the start, as does the whole | idea that cryptos can be traded in regulated capitalism. Bitcoin | needs its own country (or planet) with nukes and all. | duxup wrote: | > Why people registered their exchanges along with the rest of | the banking system ? | | Access to people and money? | | Personally I think the initial philosophy behind crypto and how | it is actually used has long since disconnected. | seydor wrote: | i think it's not possible to be disconnected. it's like using | laptops to cook pasta | duxup wrote: | I don't know what that means. | jrm4 wrote: | Not that I agree with the own planet thing; but yes -- it's | odd. All of this was 100% predictable and should have been | expected by everyone. The _stated purpose_ of crypto was to get | around this; its weird to see crypto fans "get mad" at e.g. | the SEC. It's like getting mad at a shark for going after | bleeding prey; it's just what was always going to happen. | hirako2000 wrote: | Mad because some entrepreneurs makes the effort to build | legitimate business entities, and what certain governments | find to do is any scheme to keep them out of legitimity. | | Not that crypto fans would care all that much about these | businesses, but there is a need to onramp and offramp given | transactions are made in their vast majority in fiat. An | exchange run as a business having at least a lot at stake in | ensuring continuity is one of the decent ways to get on with | crypto. | | If it was my call I would skip the perp and earn products to | stay clear of regulators when operating in the US, but there | must be stories behind closed doors that we don't easily get | to know would be my guess. | JohnFen wrote: | > Mad because some entrepreneurs makes the effort to build | legitimate business entities, and what certain governments | find to do is any scheme to keep them out of legitimity. | | This isn't what it looks like to me. It looks to me like | the entire point of cyptocurrency was to complete route | around regulations that these people thought were too | onerous. That's not building a "legitimate" business, | that's taking a risk and building a business in the hopes | that it will end up being legitimized. | | I think that if you're taking a big risk and lose, it's | unseemly to be mad at anyone except yourself. | jrm4 wrote: | Exactly this! For whatever reason I have this image of | guy in a wetsuit and surfboard looking at a big wave | coming in and being like "whoa, what's this? how dare | it!" | hirako2000 wrote: | Entrepreneur are risk takers, and they do move the | needle. We easily forget to thank them. | | Would you say the same about music streaming, as | companies were launching services without all the due | dues, but knew they would finally have leverage once they | have a significant user base to negociate deals for | legitimate offerings? | | Anyhow those big risk takers are not losing because of | the roulette factor here, they are hit by some political | stance that wants to keep a statu quo, with crypto | entering more mainstream at each cycle, legislators work | hard at putting a stop to it. | | Just read what the head of the SEC said, verbatim "the US | does not need other digital currencies". As if it was the | SEC to tell what the US need and doesn't need. This whole | war against crypto isn't about unregistered securities | being sold by unlicensed businesses, it's about using | whatever they have to tame what has become a threatening | industry, a competition to the traditional financial | system. It's about keeping the statu quo. | | Yesterday bitcoiners were drug dealers and terrorist, | today they are illegitimate investors and exchanges are | not following financial regulations, the law, abusing | innocent uneducated investors. These laws are impossible | to navigate, after countess demands from businesses and | those competent in that tech along with the law: Provide | clear direction and regulations for a legitimate crypto | field. But no, let's sue businesses who insist to operate | and keep the rules impossible to adhere to so that we can | sue, shut down, after the demonising that stopped working | so well after a while. | | I would like to be less one sided but the simplistic | views on the crypto situation can only make me more | radical in the view that the whole thing will be, or | should be some may say, absolutely not regulated. Those | who get into it don't want some imposed pseudo | protection, they just demand the freedom of money. If its | the SEC or the danger of being rug pulled, more and more | will chose the second. | seydor wrote: | it's not like these onramps served the real purpose of | digital currency. People don't buy bitcoin in order to pay | for services, they buy it to speculate. Bitcoin could | succeed even without onramps; digital workers can easily | accept bitcoin if they care, which over time will be traded | with goods in the physical world with other people who | care. That's grass roots deployment, not VC-backed | "legitimate" ponzi exchanges. | | I do however understand why people are mad. To me it seems | that crypto is to GenZ what Real estate was to boomers. | It's about building generational wealth in a time of | extreme inequality where most other avenues have been | closed. It may come back for that, but it has to be built | outside the confines of state-regulated money systems | hirako2000 wrote: | The offramp / onramp is necessary so long as we have two | systems, we need a gate between the two, even if crypto | had 10 times its current level of trading transactions, | as in trading of good or services for crypto, there would | still be a large imbalance where more income would be | taking fiat in. Adoption is happening, surely less so or | far slower in the developed nations like in the US, but | is not contracting globally. Unless all fiat currencies | were to suddenly collapse, the bridge is needed. And, | even if the wildest adoption was to take place, there | will likely still be centralised issuers here and there, | some countries sitting on paper money which would make | off ramping a very long term need. | | Interesting comment, I like the parallel with the boomers | era. Crypto may just take over once throw genX take over | in far greater numbers, get elected, and the few old | recalcitrant putting obstacle get cornered. | seydor wrote: | If bitcoin was valued, banks would create the onramps. | The current, speculation -based exchanges are putting the | cart before the horse | jrm4 wrote: | Yeah, but let's be real. I 100% believe in the big picture | theory of crypto, but it's not at all _unreasonable_ for | the parties in charge to see what 's actually happening to | real people and to be like "this is NOTHING but scams." | | I don't have a lot of sympathy for whingeing about "the SEC | is treating us unfairly." They're doing their job. If | "crypto-at-large" wants to be an acceptable business thing, | then it needs to better protect people from getting | scammed; present regime of crypto things have nearly | absolutely failed at this. | TimPC wrote: | Crypto companies think they don't trade securities which is | clearly wrong and contradicted by their own advertising. People | buy crypto without a real use for crypto because they think they | can sell it for more later. Everyone under the sun knows this. | It's obviously a security and failing to register should be met | by SEC cases like this one. | dcow wrote: | There are two modalities to crypto and the law needs to treat | them differently. Running a node on a crypto currency network | does not generate securities. It generates commodities. We | don't tax people on the FMV of gold when they dig it out of the | ground. But, speculating on the price of gold by creating a | virtual token/contract/etc. and selling that, well that's | obviously a security. Just because people buy gold | speculatively does make it a security. So buying bitcoin or | chia (no longer eth) is still buying a commodity. Anything | else, yeah, seems like it passes the sniff test for a security. | Analemma_ wrote: | > We don't tax people on the FMV of gold when they dig it out | of the ground. | | Uh, yeah, we definitely do. I have relatives who sell the oil | under their property, and that absolutely is taxable income. | dcow wrote: | The _sale_ is taxable obviously and of course. The same is | true for gold and crypto. | | But your relatives didn't get a tax bill for 25% of the | value of the oil the moment it was prospected, did they? | Their land value went up but they weren't taxed on the | value increase either (that happens when the land is sold). | dgfitz wrote: | Maybe I'm mistaken, but my property taxes increase as the | value of the property increases. The sales tax is a tax | on the sale itself when sold at price $X. | vkou wrote: | > We don't tax people on the FMV of gold when they dig it out | of the ground. | | Why shouldn't we? We tax people on the FMV of something | valuable created out of thin air, why should gold be an | exception? | paulddraper wrote: | > We tax people on the FMV of something valuable created | out of thin air, | | There are _income_ taxes which apply when goods or services | are sold. | | There are _sales_ taxes when goods are purchased. | | There are _property_ taxes when goods are owned. | | Nothing gets taxed on creation. | revbed wrote: | And there are _excise_ taxes when goods are created. | paulddraper wrote: | Excise taxes are a product-specific sales tax. | | For example, on gasoline. The tax occurs at the pump, not | at the refinery. | lottin wrote: | It isn't exempt. The miner will have to pay VAT when they | try to sell the gold. | stonogo wrote: | In my youth it was illegal to own gold _at all_ unless it was | jewelry. You 'd be surprised what "we" do when it comes to | wealth. | WoahNoun wrote: | > We don't tax people on the FMV of gold when they dig it out | of the ground. | | The IRS considers found gold to be gross income and taxes are | owed on it. | whimsicalism wrote: | Dig out of the ground != found gold, look at the caselaw | [deleted] | zamfi wrote: | > People buy crypto without a real use for crypto because they | think they can sell it for more later. | | That's not what makes something a security -- many things fit | into that template that aren't securities: collectibles, | commodities, etc. | isp wrote: | > Crypto companies think they don't trade securities | | To quote the Binance Chief "Compliance" Officer: "we are | operating as a fking unlicensed securities exchange in the USA | bro" | | Source: Quoted in the filing yesterday where SEC sued Binance | | > 111. As Binance's CCO bluntly admitted to another Binance | compliance officer in December 2018, "we are operating as a | fking unlicensed securities exchange in the USA bro." | | https://www.sec.gov/files/litigation/complaints/2023/comp-pr... | koonsolo wrote: | > in the USA | | Important part of the conversation that some people here seem | to forget. | zymhan wrote: | The title of this post is "US SEC sues Coinbase". | | No one is "forgetting". | koonsolo wrote: | Literally a parent comment: | | > Everyone under the sun knows this. It's obviously a | security | | Is this US ignorance or what? "It's a security in US, so | it's a security for everyone under the sun" | asveikau wrote: | I hear if you add "bro" to a statement it makes you immune | from prosecution. | EA-3167 wrote: | It's almost unbelievable that someone would put something so | monumentally incriminating in writing, but there it is. | | Those boys are doomed. | Analemma_ wrote: | A bunch of people have speculated that this was a CYA move. | I mean, if you get hired as the Compliance Officer for a | company which clearly has no interest in compliance and | only hired you to give a facade of respectability, you | probably want to have a paper trail indicating "I clearly | communicated that this was against the law, and they | ignored me" for when the cops inevitably come. | jahewson wrote: | Nothing says "innocent" like observing your criminality | before getting right back to participating in the crime. | ceejayoz wrote: | It could, if you're a whistleblower/informant. The SEC's | bounty program makes it a pretty good idea. | https://www.sec.gov/whistleblower | madrox wrote: | This was my thought as well. In all likelihood, the CCO | is the person who informed to the SEC. If I were in that | role, I would have. | drexlspivey wrote: | SEC is supposed to tell them what is a security and what isn't | so they can refrain from selling them. Exchanges have been | asking for clarification over and over. So far the only thing | the SEC said on the subject is that BTC in _not_ a security but | nothing about the other cryptos. | | In the absence of regulatory clarity Coinbase have devised | their own framework to classify what tokens aren't securities | and proceeded to list them. I don't know how you can blame | them. It's the SEC's job to tell them what they can trade and | what they can't but they refuse to do it. | TylerE wrote: | They did tell them - Howey test etc, Coinbase just didn't | like the answer and thus has been pretending they didn't hear | it. | drexlspivey wrote: | Please point to where the SEC has made any official | statement defining which crypto is and isn't a security. | TylerE wrote: | That's not how it works. They say what a security is. | It's not their job to be babysit. Corps wishing to play | in this field are expected to understand the basic | foundations. | Yizahi wrote: | When tokenbro industry invented a very convoluted asset class | they expected government to say "Oh, it's really hard to | understand and classify it, that's why we won't do it at all. | You guys can do whatever you want now.". But actually they | said "Oh, it's really hard to understand and classify it, | that's why we will have to do it the long and painful way, | and you guys can wait for us or not. But if you want to | operate before the decision is reached - it's on you if you | break the law.". | | Apparently a really convoluted business plan is not an | inherent human right, if it is masking law infringement in he | mean time. Who knew, right?:) | krunck wrote: | That's odd. All these years I thought I was exchanging dollars | for Bitcoin for spending it. Thanks for setting me straight. | _fizz_buzz_ wrote: | I know lots of people that own bitcoin. I haven't met anybody | that uses bitcoin to spend it on anything. | | It still makes front page news on reddit if someone does | groceries with crypto: https://old.reddit.com/r/CryptoCurrenc | y/comments/13a9q3r/yes... | | People write articles if a house gets sold with bitcoin: | https://finbold.com/house-in-portugal-sold-for-3-bitcoins- | in... | | Spending bitcoin on "stuff" basically doesn't exist. It's a | rounding error. | dopa42365 wrote: | It's almost as if people don't actually want a multiple | dollar transaction fee that can take an hour (or more) to | process. | | That may be acceptable when you use bitcoin (or more likely | Monero) to buy whatever your heart desires, but is | absolutely not usable for regular purchases. | achillean wrote: | As a vendor that tried accepting crypto I can confirm that | it's basically non-existent. And the few transactions that | do take place have a lot more issues than regular payments: | https://blog.shodan.io/accepting-crypto-a-vendor- | perspective... | throw1234651234 wrote: | It's absolutely unclear what the SEC is doing here at all. Why | is ALGO a security and ETH is not? They do the same thing. What | are the implications of this lawsuit? Completely unclear. This | is vague and unhelpful. | | edit: Keep downvoting - the fact, with a clear example, | remains. | pjc50 wrote: | Howey test. | tromp wrote: | I think ETH should have been classified as one too, due to | its ICO. Making an exemption for that was a mistake... | WinstonSmith84 wrote: | Let's ask Gensler what are his thoughts about ETH then | | https://twitter.com/sassal0x/status/1648338351832064003 | | Oh wait ... :-) | throw1234651234 wrote: | That's amazing on the level of refusal to answer a simple | question. | simpsond wrote: | The primary use cases of ETH are changing state of the | network and collateral for state change validation. | Requester pays to effect change and some ETH is burnt and | some goes to validators to incentivize operation. What | other security does that? I don't expect profit when using | it to change state of the network. | EscapeFromNY wrote: | When was ETH declared as not a security? I don't remember | hearing anything about that. | | The SEC says only BTC is a commodity: | | https://www.axios.com/2022/06/28/bitcoin-is-the-only-coin- | th... | | The CFTC says only BTC is a commodity: | | https://cryptoslate.com/cftc-chair-rostin-behnam-snubs- | ether... | | People keep saying that regulation is unclear, when let's be | honest, it's perfectly clear. Just not what a lot of people | wanted to hear. | whimsicalism wrote: | > People keep saying that regulation is unclear, when let's | be honest, it's perfectly clear. Just not what a lot of | people wanted to hear. | | I honestly don't know how you can say that with a straight | face if you have ever looked into this for more than 5 | minutes. | | The regulation is _not_ clear and they refuse to clarify | when asked on many important topics. Compare that to other | security related issues, where regulators are very | proactive about _clearly_ defining what is what, publishing | explainers, etc. etc. | taeric wrote: | The fact that they have been asked, point blank, by | congress, "is ETH a security?" and the SEC wouldn't answer | is pretty fair for claiming "not perfectly clear." | | Even here, it wasn't all of ETH that is under question. So, | if you have bought some ETH from coinbase, it isn't under | fire here. If you paid them to stake your ETH, it is. It is | unclear, to me, what it would mean for any ETH you staked | personally. | vkou wrote: | I've watched that interview, congress would ask a loaded | question, framed in a fallacy[1], the chair would start | answering it, and the congresscritter would interrupt him | and throw a tantrum. Repeat 5x. | | It wasn't a good look. For the congresscritter. | | (I wonder how much money he's gotten from Sam, CZ, and | Coinbase...) | | [1] The fallacy in question is the congresscritter's | claim[2] that a security can't also be a commodity. This | is trivially disprovable by a simple example - an | isolated company town using scrip, where the scrip also | happens to be company stock. | | [2] Whenever the chair would start responding to the | fallacy, the congresscritter shouts over him, because if | he doesn't, his argument-in-the-form-of-a-question falls | to pieces. | taeric wrote: | He wouldn't start answering. He was asked "yes or no, is | ..." and would start hemming and hawing with words that | were neither "yes" or "no." | vkou wrote: | Have you stopped beating your wife? | | Yes or no. No hemming or hawing. It's a simple question, | yes, or no? | | ---- | | Is it clear to you now that a simple yes or no question, | couched in an incorrect assertion is not actually a | simple yes-or-no question? | taeric wrote: | A question where answering easily implies past behavior | is very different from one that does not. "Do you think | it is ok to beat your spouse?" better not get any slow | rolled answer, and is more comparable here. | | Hell, I'd be fine with a hedged answer of "it can be." | That would make a ton of sense and would make sense. Akin | to asking "is it speeding to drive your car at 40?" The | answer would be "in certain situations, certainly. Can be | too fast and it can be too slow." So an answer of "I | can't answer without more context" would be fine. | | None of that is what I saw. | vkou wrote: | Past behaviour isn't the issue. An incorrect assertion is | the issue. | | Let me give you another chance to answer a simple yes or | no question. | | ---- | | Since it's obvious that democrats are all criminals and | baby-eaters, is Elizabeth Warren a democrat? | | Yes or no. No hemming or hawing. I'll interrupt you as | soon as I hear any words besides those two. Your answer | or failure to answer will appear as a headline in the New | York Times. | | ---- | | The chair _was_ responding to the statement made in the | question, the congressman just didn 't like what that | response was, which is why he kept interrupting. | whimsicalism wrote: | For any who might be interested, a link to the exchange | that this user is comparing to asking if "democrats are | all criminals and baby-eaters" [0]. Remember, the law is | "extremely clear" on whether these tokens are securities | or commodities, according to the GGP commentator. | | [0]: https://youtu.be/VhA1dZXeao0?t=58 | taeric wrote: | The question was literally "is ETH a security?" To | compare that to the questions you are stating is | laughably bad faith argument. | | Though, I'll bite. What statement is made by the question | "Is ETH a security?" Why is that a question that can't be | answered with "Yes", "No", or "it depends how it is | packaged"? | vkou wrote: | The question was literally "Because something cannot be | both a security and a commodity, is Eth a security?" | | The chair's answer was, as we can glean from the | interruptions (but who the hell really knows, the man's | not allowed to finish a sentence) 'It depends'. | taeric wrote: | If he was saying "it depends" he had a lot of words to | say that. His sentences were like my talking to the kids | when I ask "did you do your homework?" It was painful. | | And note that some things can be both a security while | wrapped around a commodity. Just look at brokered CDs. | Such that, even if you agreed that ETH is a commodity, | you can still have financial instruments on ETH that are | securities. | trifurcate wrote: | No, I have not stopped beating my wife. | throw1234651234 wrote: | That's the root of the problem - it's absolutely unclear | what the global implications are and if this will be used | to go after individuals staking on their own, etc. | loeg wrote: | No agency has the resources or interest to go after | individuals that aren't doing anything especially | egregious. | throw0101c wrote: | > _Crypto companies think they don 't trade securities_ [...] | | I think the main debate is whether they are (in the US) | securities under the SEC or commodities under the CFTC. | | Though there may be related products and funds that are being | traded. | EricDeb wrote: | People buy houses, dont live in them, purely to sell them for | more later. | gonzo41 wrote: | What's the use of crypto again? Because I think it's kinda | useless. Just like NFT's | cultureswitch wrote: | Imagine your business or employer is suddenly blacklisted by | payment processors over political/cultural reasons. | | The advantages of crypto should become pretty clear at that | point. | greenie_beans wrote: | imagine your crypto wallet being blacklisted by a 51% | attack, over political/cultural reasons. | sebzim4500 wrote: | This hasn't happened to any large coins though, whereas | people have had their bank accounts frozen for political | reasons. | Demmme wrote: | Destroying our planet even faster by tons and tons of Asics | garbage and CO2 production | | Lucky enough VC is now going to ml | matheusmoreira wrote: | Monero is private and perfectly usable for payments. I've | gotten paid in Monero, works great. People just need to start | using it. | taeric wrote: | I could ask the same for a lot of things, though? Time | shares, collectible card games, collectibles at large, | fashion at large, etc. | | Not that I can or will wholly defend crypto. That just | doesn't seem like a relevant complaint. | | I do question the desire for everlasting permanence of the | blockchain. I know we like to keep real estate deed records | and such going back as far as we can, but even there we have | limited utility of that. Encasing it in a technical solution | that expands to cover more transactions does feel limited in | usefulness. Largely ironic/funny that it makes it incredibly | unsuited to criminal use. | jakear wrote: | > Time shares | | They bring the probability that you will be harassed by | police/landowners/elements/civilians when residing in an | area way down. Personally, I take the harassment and sleep | on the street. But it's not easy and many would pay not to. | | > collectible card games | | You have fun when you play them. People pay to have fun. | | > collectibles at large | | Idk some people just get weird addictions. I put | collectables at large in the same bucket as crypto, no | defense there. | | > fashion at large | | Looking good is more likely to get you laid. People like | getting laid, and will pay for it. | alwayslikethis wrote: | Permissionless electronic worldwide payment. That's it. An | optional but good to have part is anonymity, which you get | with Monero. | fullshark wrote: | Economic actvity that you don't want a bank or government | body to stop, so: illegal activity. | foodjinn wrote: | Mastercard and paypal have both shut down legal activity in | the last 4 years on the backs of government decisions or | targeting legal, but politically inconvenient activity and | there seems to be no slowing down on that avenue. Pornhub | is one recent major example of that. | | The idea that it's just criminal enterprises that benefit | from being able to participate in markets without | interference is laughable at best given the increased | interconnectedness between banks and the regulators | themselves, especially not even 6 months after a rash of | major banking failures within the traditional financial | markets. | | There is very little reason to have a favorable opinion of | the SEC following the 08 collapse given their own hand in | it or the banking failures existing now, especially when | they refuse to clarify their position on what is or is not | a security so people CAN legally operate in the space. It | appears to many both inside and outside of the space that | the SEC is wielding its regulatory arm to create winners | and losers, and with their own track record it's a failing | proposition. | | It may be hyperbolic, but the holocaust was a legal | activity in Nazi occupied territory. | Kaytaro wrote: | Giving individuals the power to be their own banks is not | useless. Unpractical maybe, but not useless. | __MatrixMan__ wrote: | Crypto is for coordinating group behavior in the presence of | powerful adversaries (e.g. governments), always has been. | JohnFen wrote: | Umm, OK. Funny that's not how it's been marketed. But I'm | baffled as to how cryptocurrency is better for doing that | than all of the other ways of doing that. | __MatrixMan__ wrote: | The drugs I've bought with cryptocurrency have been | cheaper and of better quality than the drugs I've bought | with dollars, by a wide margin. So there's that. | | The marketing you're talking about is for the investors. | By the nature of the product, the users have powerful | adversaries and are probably operating in secret. You | can't expect their use cases to show up in the marketing, | that would defeat the purpose. | | Sure, you get the bad with the good. There are definitely | unsavory things going on under the covers. But you have | to weigh that against the misbehavior of the powerful in | a world where they're more difficult to coordinate | against due to a underdeveloped crypto. | | It's a trade off, but I think it's a worthwhile one. | JohnFen wrote: | > in a world where they're more difficult to coordinate | against due to a underdeveloped crypto. | | This is the part I don't understand. How does | cryptocurrency make it easier to coordinate people than | all the other tools we have to coordinate people? | __MatrixMan__ wrote: | If you rely on systems that involve implicit custodial | trust (i.e. not crypto) to coordinate with your homies, | and you have powerful adversaries, your adversaries will | compel those custodians to prevent you from communicating | with your homies. They also might find you and hurt you. | | This happened with thepiratebay and DNS. It happened with | wikileaks and paypal. It happened at the ISP level with | Signal during recent unrest in Iran. It happens with the | US banking system anytime somebody manages to get | somebody else on one of the OFAC lists. It happens to | would-be radicals on twitter all the time. | | On the other hand, systems that don't involve implicit | custodial trust don't have these problems, which is why | journalists in China occasionally publish on Ethereum, | because the Chinese censors don't have a single-point-of- | failure to attack. | | I don't think that currencies are an especially | interesting application (although the wikileaks case is | an example where they are relevant to group | coordination). It's just that the currencies are what | gets hyped because they're relevant to the investment | side--without them, there's less money to build the other | stuff. | | Another example which I expect to emerge, but which I | don't think has been developed yet, would be the use of | NFT's in a successor system. If the leader of a movement | gets apprehended or incapacitated and they don't check in | after a certain number of blocks, then a contract moves | the leadership token to their successor. This denotes the | successor's signing keys as authoritative, and the | leader's (presumably compromised) keys as deprecated. If | you keep signatures on-chain you can also tell which ones | were registered at a time when they were valid. | | You couldn't do this on AWS, somebody would just compel | AWS to remove the data they don't like, you need | something like a blockchain. But it only works if enough | people are running nodes to make attacking all of the | node operators infeasible. For that you need to provide | incentives, and now we're back to cryptocurrency. | | For me it comes down to whether you think dissent is more | important than preventing all of the shady business that | goes on in secret online. I do, so I'm pro-crypto. The | currency bit is an ugly necessity which I hope we can | find a way to get rid of. | thesausageking wrote: | If that's true, then why did the SEC approve Coinbase's IPO and | not doing anything about it until years later? Even in spite of | Coinbase meeting with the SEC hundreds of times and testifying | before congress. This is a complete change in their stance by | the SEC. | thisgoesnowhere wrote: | Because the SECs role in IPOs have nothing to do with wether | or not you are breaking securities law. | | They are just testing that you are not lying in your public | financial declarations. | pnpnp wrote: | Isn't it true that the SEC wouldn't let Coinbase register since | they said Bitcoin _isn't_ a security? It's my understanding | that Coinbase tried. | strangescript wrote: | If you opened an exchange and did nothing but trade bitcoin, | and only bitcoin, you would be free and clear, but there is | no real money in that. Coinbase argued a few years ago they | were losing to competition because their competitors could do | a lot of gray area stuff they couldn't to do being a US-based | traded company. Getting listed on Coinbase used to be the | gold standard of a trusted, respectable crypto, but they at | some point decided screw it and just embraced the coming | legal challenges. | pnpnp wrote: | Interesting! I hadn't looked at it this way. | dragontamer wrote: | Article discusses Coinbase Earn, which was a staking service | providing APY yields. | | Is that not an unregistered financial product? That's also | the kind of financial product directly behind FTX, Voyager, | Gemini, and Lunacoin / Celsius collapses. | | So we have direct evidence of a particular produce (staking) | that is both unregistered and dangerous. That many Americans | lost money over. | andreygrehov wrote: | > That many Americans lost money over. | | This requires a citation with data points, eg how many | Americans lost money, how much money did they lose, etc. | Because, what if there are more Americans who've made money | than those who have lost? | | > SEC said Coinbase has since at least 2019 made billions | of dollars by handling cryptocurrency transactions, while | evading the disclosure requirements meant to protect | investors | | This is a pure framing - it doesn't matter how much money | Coinbase made. Otherwise, it means that if you don't make | _billions_, you can conveniently avoid the disclosure | requirements intended to protect investors. So really, they | should've written something like: "Coinbase has been | facilitating cryptocurrency transactions since at least | 2019, while evading the disclosure requirements intended to | protect investors". | | While I do understand that these are the legal | requirements, the protect investors "narrative" (khm-khm, | requirement) is a joke. People lose money trading stocks / | options / etc every day. To me, as a consumer, there is | zero difference between trading AAPL on TD Ameritrade App | vs trading crypto through Coinbase App. How's TD Ameritrade | _protecting_ me from losing money? | anonymouskimmer wrote: | > How's TD Ameritrade protecting me from losing money? | | https://www.tdameritrade.com/regulation-best-interest- | and-fo... | itake wrote: | > Because, what if there are more Americans who've made | money than those who have lost? | | Why does this matter? Even if Americans are scamming | foreigners (0 Americans losing money), that doesn't make | this legal. | | The difference between aapl and coinbase is there is | regulatory audits of the books and required publications | about the health of the security. There are rules about | insider trading and insurance protections if a brokerage | mishandles your money (see Blockfi). | andreygrehov wrote: | > Why does this matter? | | Because the parent said "that many Americans lost money | over". Plus the SEC is "protecting investors". So I'm | asking, what if there are more people who've made money | over those who lost? Does that mean life's good? Coinbase | has been pretty transparent about their operations. Not | only transparent, they've publicly mentioned several | times how frustrated they are dealing with SEC, the | organization that is slow to come up with various legal | requirements for the cryptocurrency industry. In a way, | Coinbase helps the SEC to raise their own bar. | itake wrote: | Would the SEC be protecting investors if they allow 1 | investor to get scammed to the benefit of 2+ investors? | | We need systems in place where everyone can make | trustworthy investments. If people can't feel safe (even | if it's one person or many people), then our economy will | slow down (see current crypto prices post-terra, ftx, and | more). | [deleted] | dragontamer wrote: | > This requires a citation with data points, eg how many | Americans lost money, how much money did they lose, etc. | | My coworker lost $X0,000 over Celsius. | | So yes, maybe this is a personal bias. But its based in | reality. His entire account at Celsius is written off. He | managed to save his money from Voyager. I got cousins who | lost money in FTX. Different people, but same overall | problem. | | If my personal social circle is showing huge losses in | these companies, I have to imagine that other people out | there have similar experiences. I don't need a study to | prove the facts, I just talk to my cousins / coworkers / | other people who are directly affected. | | EDIT: I forgot about this lovely thing: https://cases.str | etto.com/public/x191/11749/PLEADINGS/117491... | | See page 34, containing links to the customers who lost | money in celsius. For the list of customers starting with | the letter "A": https://cases.stretto.com/public/x191/117 | 49/CORRESPONDENCE/1... | | There, that's Celsius alone. Is that enough proof for ya? | | > Because, what if there are more Americans who've made | money than those who have lost? | | Its not about making or losing money. Its about accounts | disappearing because they've been lied to. | | We're all adults here. We know that investments can lose | money. But lying about those investments is where the law | needs to step in. Liars need to be punished. And I get | that people have been skirting the truth recently. But | when we get to Celsius, Voyager, and FTX, the money was | just straight up being stolen. Its the worst case | offenders. | | So now we need to think about what kind of culture caused | these crimes. And its increasingly looking like | "staking", and the culture surrounding it, is to blame. | andreygrehov wrote: | > If my personal social circle is showing huge losses in | these companies, I have to imagine that other people out | there have similar experiences. | | This is a personal bias. I've made $86,000 trading | Ethereum. My brother-in-law made $24,000 trading Bitcoin. | My reality is different from your reality -\\_(tsu)_/- | | I can't speak for Celsius, Voyager, and FTX. If there was | a scam, it has to be punished. No questions asked. But | Coinbase has been closely working with SEC for years. | lifeonlars wrote: | That's irrelevant. | | By definition, Ponzi schemes involve some investors | making a lot of money and others losing. That doesn't | make them any less illegal. | | If some people are harmed by unlawful behavior, that is a | reason to prosecute, just the same as if you mugged Alice | and bought Bob an icecream with the proceeds. | anonymouskimmer wrote: | Would pumping Bob's stomach be an unreasonable seizure? | How can Alice be made whole if it is? | dragontamer wrote: | > I've made $86,000 trading Ethereum | | That's not the problem. | | The problem is that companies like Celsius, FTX, and | Voyager are disappearing and collapsing. | | Binance and Coinbase are two other companies that could | just randomly disappear because of how incredibly sketchy | their products are (especially "Earn" or "Staking" | products). | | I'm pointing out companies that collapse (taking | literally Billions of American money away). And you're | just coming in here saying "But I made money on something | totally unrelated", as if its a good argument? | | > This is a personal bias. | | I'll proudly be biased in favor of reality. There's | nothing wrong with taking a stance when my real world | friends get affected. | | > I can't speak for Celsius, Voyager, and FTX. If there | was a scam, it has to be punished. No questions asked. | But Coinbase has been closely working with SEC for years. | | Coinbase is doing the same thing as Celsius, Voyager, and | FTX with their Earn / Staking products. And now the SEC | is suing them over it. | | There's a pattern here. And I for one, am glad that the | SEC is no longer fickle and is trying to be proactive | about it. Trying to get American money out of these | dangerous instruments before they collapse, rather than | after (when its too late). | andreygrehov wrote: | Dude, I made that comment in response to your "My | coworker lost $X0,000 over Celsius" to highlight the fact | that not everyone's circle is losing money. | | > Coinbase is doing the same thing as Celsius, Voyager, | and FTX with their Earn / Staking products. And now the | SEC is suing them over it. | | Why can't SEC work with Coinbase before suing them? | Again, Coinbase has been seeking help from SEC for years. | Brian Armstrong, the CEO of Coinbase, talked about this | so many times. They are trying to work with the | regulators, but the problem is that the regulators lack | expertise dealing with these new asset types. | dragontamer wrote: | > Dude, I made that comment in response to your "My | coworker lost $X0,000 over Celsius" to highlight the fact | that not everyone's circle is losing money. | | But you making money doesn't allow my friend, or anyone | from FTX, or Voyager to get their money back. | | And you fail to see that it is HOW he lost money that I | take issue with. Celsius lied about unregulated | staking/interest yielding instruments to him and the | natur of how it worked. | | And Coinbase is making the same lie right now with | Coinbase Earn. And you are sitting here defending it, and | ignoring three major collapses last year while doing so. | anonymouskimmer wrote: | > Why can't SEC work with Coinbase before suing them? | Again, Coinbase has been seeking help from SEC for years. | | How has Coinbase been "seeking help"? They are a company, | they should be going to the SEC with all of the | particulars of each of their investment items and saying | to the SEC "We believe we have met your standards of | fiduciary duty on these items that appear to be | securities, have we?" They shouldn't be saying, "Hey, | SEC, are these things we're selling securities, and thus | need a higher standard of duty of care? Tee hee, we can't | figure it out on our own, as we're just a little company | with thousands of employees trading billions of dollars a | year. Until you get back to us we'll just assume that | they aren't securities and won't bother meeting the | higher standard of care." | andreygrehov wrote: | They filed a petition which SEC failed to address. The | result is Coinbase suing SEC. Now, SEC sues Coinbase | back. Seriously, wtf? SEC needs a massive slap on their | hands. If they lack expertise and don't have enough | knowledge (literally), then whoever works there should go | "back to school" (figuratively speaking), learn all the | ins and outs of crypto, and only after consider joining | the SEC as an employee. | | https://assets.ctfassets.net/c5bd0wqjc7v0/5PWsXaPsqQ61gA9 | wlF... Coinbase brings this mandamus | action to seek modest, but meaningful and time-sensitive, | relief: a writ requiring the Securities and Exchange | Commission (SEC or Commission) to act on Coinbase's | pending rulemaking petition to provide clarity for the | crypto industry. Coinbase does not ask the Court to | instruct the agency how to respond. It simply requests | that the Court order the SEC to respond at all. The | Commission has repeatedly demonstrated that its mind is | made up to deny the petition. But the Commission's delay | in formally announcing that decision has enabled it to | improperly delay judicial review at a critical moment for | the industry. | dragontamer wrote: | https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2023-102 | | > "We allege that Coinbase, despite being subject to the | securities laws, commingled and unlawfully offered | exchange, broker-dealer, and clearinghouse functions," | said SEC Chair Gary Gensler. "In other parts of our | securities markets, these functions are separate. | Coinbase's alleged failures deprive investors of critical | protections, including rulebooks that prevent fraud and | manipulation, proper disclosure, safeguards against | conflicts of interest, and routine inspection by the SEC. | Further, as we allege, Coinbase never registered its | staking-as-a-service program as required by the | securities laws, again depriving investors of critical | disclosure and other protections." | | Seems rather straightforward to me given this press | release. | | Quit comingling functions. Bring your exchange to proper | legal structure in the USA. Split the broker-dealer and | clearinghouse functions off. | | And quit operating Coinbase Earn, which is an obvious | security by any other name. Either that, or properly | register Coinbase Earn as a security before offering it | as a product to the public. If you are to keep operating | Coinbase Earn, then bring it under security regulations, | which means reporting upon your assets and such under | whatever filing system you want (probably bonds?) | | Its... not even that hard to read the SEC complaint. Just | read it, the complaint is right there for all of us to | see. | andreygrehov wrote: | This is indeed straightforward, but I'm not complaining | about it. If all of these requirements had been outlined | by the SEC prior to the release of the products, Coinbase | would've followed the rules. Now when all of these | products are in production, the SEC woke up and like: | "heeey, this is a security, you must follow the rules". | But there were no rules before. So, shall Coinbase just | sit there and wait while the SEC learns more about | blockchains? I don't know if there was any "warning" from | the SEC, but if not, they should've published a public | one first: "Due to X, Y and Z, the SEC gives Coinbase 6 | months to split the broker-dealer and clearinghouse | functions off". | loeg wrote: | Gains and losses between different investors don't net | out. The SEC is interested in protecting the investors | who lost (or would lose). | pa7x1 wrote: | Minor clarification. Coinbase Earn is a lending product, | you lend to Coinbase and you receive interest. The same | applies to Celsius, it provided interest on money they | borrowed. Coinbase also offers staking as a service, the | SEC is also going after this. | | But both of the above are different from actual Proof of | Stake, as conceived by Ethereum. The SEC has made no | mention of this in neither of the 2 current lawsuits. | Unfortunately many of these products misused the term to | whitewash or as a marketing gimmick. | hirako2000 wrote: | Gemini didn't collapse, and an evidence takes a bit more | clarity to be treated as such. Luna is.. a coin | | Can't you get APY returns as a retail customer with pretty | much any high street banks? In what ways is that less | dangerous than going through a crypto exchange: by the fact | the SEC is actively criminalising the activity rather than | issuing licenses so that some customer protection via the | justice system remains out there for this sort of market. | | You mentioned FTX, that's a good example, an exchange run | by a con goofy looking artist, that achieved such massive | penetration even on the US market was made possible exactly | because it is so cumbersome or impossible for a legit | business to get a license, the crypto affiliated threats | making it also difficult for normal banks to do any sort of | business with crypto entities. | | All that being said, sure, if they don't have a license | they can be sued for their earn products. | | The only clear distinctions, the one thing the name | mentioned and many others still running | wins32767 wrote: | >Can't you get APY returns as a retail customer with | pretty much any high street banks? In what ways is that | less dangerous than going through a crypto exchange: | | Well, given that there are clear ways of issuing | securities that have worked for hundreds of years that | aren't being followed and that people generally don't get | the rug pulled in normal securities, I'd say that it's | less dangerous in many obvious ways. | hirako2000 wrote: | if coinbase pulls off its earn products you can be well | assured that more people will get rug pulled elsewhere. | | Would you concede that? | robryan wrote: | Those products elsewhere would also be unregistered | securities. | dragontamer wrote: | Ehhh, I got confused over the myriad of collapsed | companies. Perhaps I shouldn't try to get better memory, | but instead cryptocoin companies need to stop collapsing. | Its getting difficult to remember each company's | situation on an individual basis. | | Gemini was sued by SEC for running unregulated securities | and was forced to shut down Gemini Earn months ago. | Whatever, but its just another example of the kind of | products the SEC is clearly looking at. | | > Luna is.. a coin | | Lunacoin supported Terra, and Celsius was backing its | staking product with Terra coins. Are... you unaware of | the connection between Luna and Celsius? | | I wrote "Lunacoin / Celsius" for a reason. This didn't | even happen that long ago, so I guess I assumed people | would know where I was going. | | I'm trying to describe the scope of unregistered, | unregulated, super-dangerous "staking" schemes that | collapsed over the last year. The names I discussed are | all related to staking. | hirako2000 wrote: | I'm aware, I'm just pointing out luna is a coin. It's a | bit hard to assimilate it to business entities running | unregistered financial products on the US soil. My | understanding is that Celsius or any lender that gets | exposed to a token value collapsing can quickly get | itself in serious muds since loans have a collateral, and | in crypto those are often crypto tokens. Anyhow that's my | recollection of what happened to Celsius, i could be | wrong. | | I don't think the problem the SEC is invoking is | "dangerous" investments. I'm not sure who would be | entitled to make the difference. | | You could stake eth and that would be one of the safest | positions to take in the crypto space. Actually anybody | can, whether the SEC sees it as OK, via centralised | exchanges for those who can access them or decentralized | exchanges for those who can't. But then of course eth | could drop 95% in value by next year and the yield would | mean nothing to compensate. It could go the other way and | go the other way. | | Does it make it a dangerous product? A security illegal | to trade without a license which the SEC wouldn't grant a | license to offer as a product to anyone? Because it's | dangerous or because it's a security having drastic | volatility? More volatile than Gamespot shares not so | long ago? Does it make gamespot so dangerous it should be | banned from trading as a security? And one last one, what | is more dangerous, owning eth tokens staked for long term | returns, or some treasury bonds issued by a country that | is systematically on the verge of defaulting on its | unbearable debt? | | And who's to say? I don't think the SEC has any | legitimacy left to be taken seriously, it let SBF runs | business inside and outside the US soil for years, | embezzling well over 10B dollars, whether he is innocent | or an idiot crook the ridicule crown goes to the SEC for | not having seen anything suspect until after the empire | entirely collapsed. | | About having flimsy memories, it's OK but it discounts | serious weight throwing incorrect facts when attacking a | type of trading activity as a whole. Your argument did | read like because so many collapsed, the whole thing must | be flagged as a failure. Anyhow, coinbase, kraken, | binance, gemini, kucoin and many others have been | operating for years just fine, and are successful, | profitable businesses to this day despite all the | obstacles regulators and the press threw at them. | | Anyhow back to the main point, I'm with you earn products | if unregistered are non compliant with regulations, so | the SEC can have its case and continue to pretend it's | doing its job. | Ekaros wrote: | Bitcoin itself might not be. Even many other currencies might | not. But what other "products" they are running? Those could | and probably would fall under various classifications. | pnpnp wrote: | Ah, of course. I forgot that they have many other | offerings. | spaceman_2020 wrote: | What about tokens that are used to pay the network, like | Ethereum? If you want to use any chain that uses Ethereum, | either as a L1 or L2, you need ETH. | redox99 wrote: | _Some_ cryptocurrencies may or may not be securities. Gary | Gensler himself has said that Bitcoin is _not_ a security. | api wrote: | A security represents ownership in something. This is just | gambling. It's more like an unregulated casino than an | unlicensed stock exchange. | butlerm wrote: | If you look up the definitions of "security", "financial | instrument", "commodity", and "currency", it is pretty clear that | a plain vanilla crypto-currency like Bitcoin is no ordinary | security nor a financial instrument. It is not a claim on | something else, even less so than a traditional bank note. It is | more like a commodity. Since when is "aluminum" a security? | | A crypto currency business however may be engaged in trading of | crypto currencies which are negotiable financial instruments, and | a stable coin that is a claim on a traditional currency is an | example of that. A stable coin bears a direct relationship to a | bank note. It is a claim on something else. It is not really an | investment though, so not much of a security. | | And then of course there are more creative negotiable financial | instruments which are definitely securities. Options, | derivatives, swaps, futures, and the like. | | The Supreme Court has a broader definition of securities, that | involves a promoted investment in a "common enterprise", but it | is unclear that a commodity currency really is a common | enterprise like a corporation is for example. It seems unlikely | to me that Bitcoin as such would even meet that definition of a | security. But other products offered by crypto currency exchanges | might. | dsg42 wrote: | The only question here is whether cryptocurrency is a security | or a commodity. Securities fall under regulation by the SEC | (SECURITIES and Exchange Commission). Commodities are regulated | by the CFTC (COMMODITIES Future Trading Commission). SEC Chair | Gensler agrees that Bitcoin is a commodity, but thinks | everything else is a security.[1] Securities are much more | tightly regulated than commodities. The SEC is making it clear | with these complaints that they believe certain | cryptocurrencies are securities. | | A court might disagree. The CFTC could potentially disagree, | although yesterday's agreement makes me think they may have | given up on that to some extent. But I actually think it's | pretty clear that any cryptocurrency project offering a reward | for "staking" or similar is a security. | | [1] https://www.axios.com/2022/06/28/bitcoin-is-the-only-coin- | th... | adsfgiodsnrio wrote: | You capitalized the wrong word. The CFTC is the Commodities | FUTURES Trading Commission. After all, a commodity is defined | as anything traded with a futures contract (except for onions | and movie tickets)! | | https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840. | .. | | A whole lot of things that aren't commodities in common | parlance are within the jurisdiction of the CFTC because they | are traded with futures contracts. This includes some | securities. A whole lot of things that _are_ commodities in | common parlance are _not_ within its jurisdiction, as the | CFTC only deals with futures contracts. | | Orange juice concentrate is a commodity by any definition. | The CFTC regulates futures contracts on orange juice | concentrate. It does not regulate its production, sale, | transportation, or anything else unrelated to futures | contracts. That is the job of the USDA, FDA, DoT, and so | forth. | | Stocks are securities. As they are traded with futures | contracts, they are also commodities. The CFTC regulates | futures contracts on securities jointly with the SEC. It does | not regulate any trading of securities that does not involve | futures contracts. That is the job of the SEC. The fact that | people trade stocks with futures has never hampered the SEC's | efforts to regulate them. | | https://www.cftc.gov/IndustryOversight/ContractsProducts/Sec. | .. | ForHackernews wrote: | It's obviously gambling and should be regulated as such: http | s://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/may/17/cryptocur... | | Commodities have real-world uses (e.g. gold, oil, frozen | orange juice), securities represent a claim on some | productive enterprise. Cryptocurrency is neither. | darksaints wrote: | Gambling happens in real world markets as well, but that | doesn't mean that real world markets are casinos. | | Beaniebabies were effectively regulated and taxed like | commodities. Commodities do not require a real-world use. | All they are are tradable non-currency things which can | result in capital gains. | | The speculative (HODL!!) cryptocurrencies should probably | be treated like commodities, and regulated as such by the | CFTC. The cryptocurrencies that are actually being used | like currencies (e.g. actually used to buy things) should | be regulated like foreign currencies, which would also be | regulated by the CFTC (this is essentially the same exact | thing as Commodities trading, but with simpler accounting | rules which reflect the much higher liquidity, | divisibility, and likelyhood that a unit changes hands). | Neither of these scenarios involve the SEC. The SEC should | only be involved when coins are being issued like | securities (e.g. as a way to raise funding and sell | financial stakes in some kind of enterprise). | ProjectArcturis wrote: | IIRC beanie babies and similar are classified as | "collectibles" and have different (worse) tax treatment | than commodities. | darksaints wrote: | Collectibles are just a subclass of Commodities which | can't be taxed using Mark To Market rules, but there are | a whole host of commodities which are just like that. | Precious metals, rare coins, cards, comics, etc., are all | collectibles, but they are still commodities for | regulatory purposes. For example, here is PR release of a | CFTC enforcement action against some fraudulent coin | dealers: | https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/8694-23 | | IIRC, the IRS and CFTC have already issued rules to treat | NFTs as collectibles. | ForHackernews wrote: | > The cryptocurrencies that are actually being used like | currencies (e.g. actually used to buy things | | So... none of them? How long are y'all going to carry on | this charade? | darksaints wrote: | How long are you gonna bury your head in the sand? There | are millions of ways to buy actual things with Bitcoin. | dcow wrote: | Curious: is "bitcoin" being used by the SEC as a general term | to mean "all cryptos that fundamentally employ a work-based | consensus algorithm", or "pure" cryptos or whatever? Or is it | not yet clear to the SEC that there are more instances of | Nakamoto consensus networks out there and not everything | other than BTC is a security? | | I agree that staked projects and derivative projects are | securities since they are fundamentally a representation of | or proxy for the actual thing of value, BTC, XCH, formerly | ETH, etc. | potatototoo99 wrote: | Of course not everything other than bitcoin is a security. | My private blockchain no one knows about is not a security. | It's not a universal law of the universe. | | What they mean is every coin/token they looked at. If asked | to evaluate litecoin for example probably they'd say it's | not a security as well. They don't need to pass judgement | on each of the thousands of coins individually because | definitions and common sense exists. | [deleted] | dcow wrote: | I'm just trying to understand the context. I hope it is | as you say and it would be my baseline assumption that it | is as well. But it's not unquestionably obvious given | history and what relatively little context is present in | this thread. The SEC _used_ to think all crypto is a | security to the point where honest miners are instructed | to declare blockchain rewards as income (I have, and | TurboTax even asks you if you acquired crypto in the last | year with no nuance as to how you acquired it or which | one you acquired). It may be obvious to you and me but my | question was more about how far the SEC's understanding | has evolved. | whimsicalism wrote: | They refuse to offer guidance even on the largest | cryptocurrencies outside of BTC. | [deleted] | tempsy wrote: | They aren't claiming Bitcoin is a security. In fact they've | made it pretty clear Bitcoin and maybe ETH are not. | | They are claiming a bunch of the newer cryptos like SOL are, | though. | paulddraper wrote: | > Crypto currency is a commodity | | Could you explain this to me? | | Are there any other examples of non-physical commodities? | jcranmer wrote: | SEC isn't suing Coinbase over Bitcoin. They're suing under two | things: | | 1. Unregistered exchange for several tokens the SEC believes | are securities: | | > This includes, but is not limited to, the units of each of | the crypto asset securities further described below--with | trading symbols SOL, ADA, MATIC, FIL, SAND, AXS, CHZ, FLOW, | ICP, NEAR, VGX, DASH, and NEXO--(the "Crypto Asset | Securities"). | | 2. Unregistered sale of securities related to the staking | program for XTZ, ETH, ATOM, ADA, SOL. This in particular has a | full, point-by-point rationale for why they are defined as | securities under the Howey test (in short, you deposit money, | and the terms make clear that it's Coinbase's money at that | point, not your money, so definitely an investment; staking | involves a common enterprise; and it's clearly advertised as | making you money based on Coinbase doing stuff with your | investment). | | Maybe Coinbase should have listened to its own advisors on how | to tailor a prospectus to not meet the Howey test definition of | a security... or maybe their advisors didn't do a good job in | the first place! | MrMan wrote: | [dead] | moralestapia wrote: | >Maybe Coinbase should have listened to its own advisors ... | | Maybe they just hired @butlerm which definitely knows what | s/he's talking about and ... well here we are :) | mrcode007 wrote: | Very good points. People often go a long way to argue against | the Howey test. The best example is Howey Co case. If someone | is a lawyer dealing in securities and acting as an advisor I | would have expected them to be familiar with the law. | Coinbase issuing public statements to SEC "tell us what is a | security" were basically a ploy or the lawyers involved were | extremely inexperienced. | | https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/SEC_v._W._J._Howey_Co. | yieldcrv wrote: | The stance isn't about whether Howey can be applied | literally everywhere | | The stance is that applying it to digital tokens as | unregistered securities means applying it to other places, | like Nike shoes and baseball cards, just because any random | individual expected to profit when they bought one | | that this framework is not applied everywhere, specifically | how congress exempted spot commodities and commodities | derivatives from the SEC framework specifically because it | was untenable | | That there is a difference between a digital commodity and | a digital security that is mutually exclusive, but the SEC | has provided no way of understanding that distinction, and | now has resorted to just arbitrarily claiming random assets | are securities in cases against the people that trade those | assets, instead of taking up cases against the issuers of | those assets and letting those issuers defend themselves or | reach a definitive conclusion | | That it is impossible to comply if it was applied | everywhere, as registered security status inherits tons of | unrelated regulations to protect incumbent intermediaries | | That the SEC will never achieve congress' delegated mission | of investor protection and only hurt investors | | And that actually inconveniencing everyone will put this | framework under a constitutional test that the SEC probably | needs to avoid, but I'm all the SEC going after the entire | sneaker trading ecosystem as unregistered broker dealers as | fallout to their crusade just to prove they aren't just | trying to debilitate crypto | | (The staking program has a separate evaluation) | majormajor wrote: | Why would a sneaker fall under the terms they're using to | define a security if not every digital token does? | yieldcrv wrote: | > Why would a sneaker fall under the terms they're using | to define a security | | because the sneaker trade market focuses on sneakers that | are released with artificial scarcity, where many | participants in that market buy with an investment of | money, with a reliance on the issuer and others to keep | them scarce and valuable and promote them, with an | expectation of profit. | | the SEC is basically saying if any random person has an | expectation of profit guiding their purchase at any time, | the entire asset and all transactions is a security and | everyone that is trading it needs to be a registered | broker dealer or registered promoter, and then even if | they could be registered they would not be allowed to | trade unregistered securities, or even registered | esoteric securities like shoes and digital commodity | units because the Self Regulatory Organizations are too | permissioned for shares and bonds exclusively. | | > if not every digital token does? | | that's the point. there is either a way where a digital | asset is exclusively a commodity, or there isn't at all | and every corporate controlled unnatural commodity | inherits the same regulatory framework that the SEC is | trying to impose on digital assets and the entire trading | ecosystem. | reaperman wrote: | They wouldn't. 'yieldcrv is not demonstrating knowledge | of the Howey test, and appears to be heavily focused on a | narrower reading, "buying something with the expectation | of increased future value" -- which they're setting up as | a strawman's Howey's test. | | Sneakers would not meet the Howey Test: An investment | contract exists if there is an "investment of money in a | common enterprise with a reasonable expectation of | profits to be derived from the efforts of others." | | The four parts of the Howey test, distilled down to plain | English (and therefore losing a great deal of nuance in | the process): | | - It is an investment of money. | | - The investment is in a common enterprise. | | - There is an expectation of profits. | | - The expectation of profits is solely from the efforts | of the promoter or a third party. | | Buying the latest Yeezy's is not a common enterprise. The | fourth point is debatable. | lmm wrote: | > Buying the latest Yeezy's is not a common enterprise. | | And yet buying a token is? What's the distinction here? | yieldcrv wrote: | that's an interesting use of strawman to invalidate the | observation | | The howey test doesn't need all prongs satisfied and | avoidance is based on probability only | | The SEC and securities industry has enjoyed a symbiosis | for 70 years, where things that blurred the lines didnt | exist, were never imagined, or were never challenged. | Challenging one challenges them all. | esotericimpl wrote: | Nike shoes and baseball cards are clearly commodities. | | If you were to stake your Air Jordan's with coinbase and | Coinbase told you in a years time you'd have 2 pairs, it | would become a security. | yieldcrv wrote: | like I wrote, the staking program has a different | evaluation and my post was not about that. we agree that | any asset can be transferred in a way that is a | securities transaction. | George83728 wrote: | > _Coinbase issuing public statements to SEC "tell us what | is a security" were basically a ploy or the lawyers | involved were extremely inexperienced._ | | I take it as a stunt intended shift the layman's perception | of Coinbase's legal responsibilities onto the SEC. They're | counting on cryptobros using this _" SEC won't tell us | what's legal"_ talking point to affect favorable political | / legislative change. | | But newsflash: government regulators aren't obliged to act | as your legal council. | whimsicalism wrote: | It is not obvious a priori how regulators will treat tokens | or which ones will be permissible. | qeternity wrote: | It was obvious to a lot of people who were wondering what | was taking regulators so long. | whimsicalism wrote: | Interesting, maybe you should let Gensler know that the | law is much more obvious than he appears to realize [0] | | [0]: https://youtu.be/VhA1dZXeao0?t=58 | earnesti wrote: | Crypto people constantly point to this video as some kind | of evidence that the SEC is clueless. Maybe it just | doesn't make sense for them to give clear answers in that | kind of hearings,or answers related to specific crypto | token. Just normal for government officials to cover | their own asses primarily and giving specific guidance | related to a specific issue at a hearing doesn't just | serve them well. | whimsicalism wrote: | I don't own any crypto [outside of very small curiosity | amounts when I was playing with it to figure out how it | works years ago] nor do I consider myself a 'crypto | person' (only, perhaps, compared to the backdrop of | extreme HN negativity around the topic). I just think | that people saying 'regulations are perfectly clear' on | this issue have not spent that much time dealing with | regulators in emerging technology. | | > Just normal for government officials to cover their own | asses primarily | | I agree - I just disagree with people suggesting that the | same logic doesn't apply to _regulators_ and _their | actions_. | | They want to keep it unclear precisely so they have the | ability to maneuver in the future and regulate if they | want. That is the exact opposite of the 'super clear' | regulations & guidance that GP was suggesting currently | exists. | JumpCrisscross wrote: | > _people saying 'regulations are perfectly clear' on | this issue have not spent that much time dealing with | regulators in emerging technology_ | | I work in a regulated industry. I have my criticisms of | Gensler. And I've (separately) profited off crypto. | | The regulations for non-Bitcoin exchanges were clear from | the start. Nobody liked that clarity. And the regulators | spent a few years navel gazing. But the legal advice I | got at the start has remained consistent: the operators | are putting themselves in jeopardy. | unyttigfjelltol wrote: | One way to look at it is a generation of boiler room | operators moved their pump'n-dump schemes from central | securities clearinghouse to crypto ledgers, because they | realized what a loophole the Bitcoin exception was. And | they brought in enough politicians and celebrities to | slow walk promises of updated regulations, and regulators | cautiously warned and waited, and here we are, with some | bowtied man criticizing the SEC for doing its job | precisely in the manner politicians demanded. | foodjinn wrote: | Not that they are clueless, that they are corrupt. | [deleted] | mrcode007 wrote: | Under the Howey test, the rules are clear. | | "The test is whether the scheme involves an investment of | money in a common enterprise with profits to come solely | from the efforts of others. If that test be satisfied, it | is immaterial whether the enterprise is speculative or | non-speculative or whether there is a sale of property | with or without intrinsic value." | | I think it is plausible that all pure staking initiatives | will go. I don't think you have much of an argument here | but I could be wrong. It will definitely be an | interesting case to watch. | jacoblambda wrote: | > investment of money in a common enterprise with profits | to come solely from the efforts of others | | This is where I see the "staking makes a cryptocurrency a | security" fall apart. There are a handful of definitions | for "staking" and some of them definitely meet the | criteria of "a common enterprise with profits to come | solely from the efforts of others" however many do not. | | 1. Ethereum's staking at a protocol level requires you to | run a staking node and you are paid for what is basically | an SLA between you and the network and you only get paid | if your node maintains a certain uptime, is kept up to | date, and operates correctly. That I don't believe meets | the criteria as it requires direct, sustained effort from | you the operator (even if it's generally low effort). | | 2. Cardano's (or Tezos') staking is similar. Stake pool | operators are effectively the same as Ethereum's stake | node operators. But even delegators (who aren't required | to stay online) still provide a service in that they are | picking the stake pools who then fill the SLAs. If they | pick pools that can't meet the requirements then the | delegators don't get paid until they can find one that | does. | | 3. Meanwhile you have networks like Algorand where | participation in consensus does not effect staking | rewards and you never have to perform a service to get | paid out by the network. Those would meet the criteria by | my understanding. | | 4. And then you have all the DeFi "staking" which is | better described as lending or liquidity pooling. You | aren't doing anything proof of stake related but are just | lending out capital as an investment. | | I can't speak on other networks but generally I found | that networks fell into one of those 4 categories. The | first two only pay people who provide a service back to | the network while with those like the third, even if you | can provide a service back to the network, you aren't | required to to be able to get paid. And then the fourth | category is just a security outright. | | Edit (because I forgot to mention it): With regards to | Coinbase's staking program, it's in a weird spot. With | those you aren't directly staking but you are outsourcing | the responsibility to a 3rd part (coinbase) to stake for | you. I wouldn't be opposed to considering this type of | custodial staking as meeting the criteria to be a | security but I don't think proof of stake at a protocol | level constitutes "a common enterprise with profits to | come solely from the efforts of others" as they require | work on behalf of the participants to get paid out. | [deleted] | skybrian wrote: | Yes, I think a reasonable position would be that if you | perform staking by self-hosting then you're providing a | service. An example is getting paid for running a machine | on the Ethereum network. | | If you pay money in now and get more money out later, and | someone else runs the machines, then it's just a loan. | | Then there's a question of where to draw the line with | cloud hosting, and I have no opinion about that. Someone | will sell a service that's barely on the right side of | that line, wherever it is. | qeternity wrote: | You're ignoring all the ICOs which are almost certainly | unregistered security offerings. | | Ethereum was funded as a public ICO. | xorcist wrote: | That doesn't even seem to be the issue here. | | Which is weird. In my humble layman's opinion, an ICO | looks an awful lot like a security offering, while a | staking protocol doesn't. | | Compare the simplified statements "Buy my token! It's | going to be great in the future!" with "Let's pool our | money and execute an agreed-upon protocol where those who | have the most get more". Why is the SEC wasting time by | going after all the weird ones before the easy pickings? | sealeck wrote: | Is it really surprising that the chair of the SEC cannot | just dispense SEC positions without consulting with | lawyers? | whimsicalism wrote: | Has Gensler never consulted lawyers on the status of | ethereum prior to this hearing? | | It should be easy yes or no from the lawyers, I'm hearing | that the law is _incredibly clear_ and not really prone | to misinterpretation so it shouldn 't be an issue. Or | maybe Gensler's lawyers are "extremely inexperienced" if | they couldn't figure out such an obvious issue? | arcticbull wrote: | You're not answering the question. Why do you think | Gensler in official capacity should just dispense one-off | soundbite determinations at the request of some clown | grilling him? | | > It should be easy yes or no from the lawyers... | | When has that ever been the case, and why should it be | the case now? | | [edit] The law is not just what's written but the | entirely of case law. The SEC has provided a framework | for analysis of securities in the context of crypto. It's | here. [1] And it builds on the DAO report, here. [2] | | [1] https://www.sec.gov/files/dlt-framework.pdf | | [2] | https://www.sec.gov/litigation/investreport/34-81207.pdf | whimsicalism wrote: | It is not at all surprising to me that he would refuse to | answer the question, but the precise reason he is doing | that is so that the SEC has freedom of movement to | regulate without being pinned down by public statements | he has made in front of congress. But that entire notion | belies the idea that the regulations are super clear or | predictable. The whole reason for this kind of maneuver | is because the regulations are not clear or predictable. | | I have no doubt he has discussed the status of ethereum | with SEC lawyers before. | freejazz wrote: | You don't seem to understand that what he says isn't | binding on the SEC | willcipriano wrote: | How does he or the SEC benefit by making a statement? | freejazz wrote: | He doesn't | arcticbull wrote: | > It is not at all surprising to me that he would refuse | to answer the question, but the precise reason he is | doing that is so that the SEC has freedom of movement to | regulate without being pinned down by public statements | he has made in front of congress. | | Because they're a legal body and what they say off hand | is precedent, so of course they have to be measured and | thoughtful. This was a shameful display, but not by | Gensler. | | > I have no doubt he has discussed the status of ethereum | with SEC lawyers before. | | Me too, but again, I refer you to the DAO Report and the | Framework for "Investment Contract" Analysis of Digital | Assets | | > But that entire notion belies the idea that the | regulations are super clear or predictable. The whole | reason for this kind of maneuver is because the | regulations are not clear or predictable. | | They're quite clear, and the whole reason for this kind | of maneuver is showboating and pandering. Based on this | thread it seems to be working. | | In a similar vein I'm confident that Brian and his | attorneys have spoken and concluded that they're almost | 100% certain to be securities, and for that reason, they | chose to avoid working with the SEC at all costs at every | point along the way. But of course that determination | would undermine the business, so off to court we go. | lmm wrote: | > Why do you think Gensler in official capacity should | just dispense one-off soundbite determinations at the | request of some clown grilling him? | | Because the whole point of the rule of law is that the | law same law applies to any clown. If the head of | securities law in the country can't tell you whether a | basic thing is legal or not then why even bother having a | congress and elections and any pretense that we live in | something other than a corrupt oligarchy? | | > [edit] The law is not just what's written but the | entirely of case law. The SEC has provided a framework | for analysis of securities in the context of crypto. It's | here. [1] And it builds on the DAO report, here. [2] | | If the SEC themselves is incapable of applying their | framework to the second-most-prominent entry in the | category of things it's designed to analyse, then what is | that framework good for? | beambot wrote: | > It should be easy yes or no from the lawyers [...] | | I've rarely received such an unequivocal binary response | from a lawyer... | nradov wrote: | In general if you're thinking of doing something in a | gray area of federal law or regulations then you can | write a formal letter to the competent regulatory agency | and request an opinion. But you have to be extremely | _specific_ and pose your questions in ways that can be | answered with a clear yes or no; you can 't expect a | useful response to a vague request for clarifications or | definitions. If the agency does give you a letter | containing a positive opinion then it serves as a nearly | ironclad defense against any civil enforcement actions or | criminal prosecution. Those opinions can change later for | political reasons, but you won't be punished | retroactively for actions prior to the change. | sroussey wrote: | FundersClub did this for creating a portal to invest in | startups. | nradov wrote: | Right, good example. You can read the SEC letter here. As | long as you ask the right questions you can get useful | answers and protect your business. | | https://www.sec.gov/divisions/marketreg/mr- | noaction/2013/fun... | whimsicalism wrote: | Yes, see for instance prediction markets in the US. | choppaface wrote: | It's not a matter of what tokens are "permissible" but | rather what protections market participants get against | fraud and instability. There was plenty of opportunity | for crypto to actually raise the bar in protecting the | consumer and it just never happened. | mrkramer wrote: | Bitcoin is a commodity [0] under the US Commodity Exchange Act | (CEA) and it is regulated by the US Commodity Futures Trading | Commission (CFTC). | | [0] | https://www.cftc.gov/sites/default/files/2019-12/oceo_bitcoi... | arcticbull wrote: | Someone holds an opinion that this is the case, it has not | been resolved as a matter of law yet. It could be, in my | opinion, a commodity. | sjtgraham wrote: | That could change in a second if another agency like the SEC | decides it's something else. There is nothing to say that two | agencies couldn't hold conflicting positions over what BTC is | or isn't. | tiahura wrote: | EPA v. West Virginia | | "The agency instead must point to 'clear congressional | authorization' for the power it claims." | eli wrote: | The SEC didn't sue them over Bitcoin. | | Seems obvious that Bitcoin shouldn't be unregulated and that | there should be no question of which regulator has | jurisdiction. Unfortunately that probably needs Congress to | act. | EscapeFromNY wrote: | I don't think there's any question who has jurisdiction. The | SEC and CFTC have both agreed it's the CFTC: | | https://www.axios.com/2022/06/28/bitcoin-is-the-only-coin- | th... | | https://cryptoslate.com/cftc-chair-rostin-behnam-snubs- | ether... | Karunamon wrote: | The problem is this is not formalized. It needs to be a law | (legislative, not administrative), ideally with the | individual tokens named. | | Relying on the goodwill of regulators is unwise. | throwaway7356 wrote: | > Since when is "aluminum" a security? | | But you don't buy "bitcoin". You buy an entry in a ledger that | you are assigned "a bitcoin", so it is just a claim you trade. | jonathankoren wrote: | >If you look up the definitions of "security", "financial | instrument", "commodity", and "currency", it is pretty clear | that a plain vanilla crypto-currency like Bitcoin is no | ordinary security nor a financial instrument. It is not a claim | on something else, even less so than a traditional bank note. | It is more like a commodity. Since when is "aluminum" a | security? | | It's a financial instrument. A commodity is used to make or do | something. Crypto currencies are literally just money making | devices. Sure they call themselves currencies, but that's not | their primary purpose. They're investment vehicles. Even the | limited ability to trade them for goods an services doesn't get | around this fact. It's like being paid in stock. That's how | they're marketed. Not as a way to buy takeout, but rather get | rich. | [deleted] | Demmme wrote: | I read them and concluded that Bitcoin fits currency very well. | | While googling those terms I also found that gold is defined as | a currency in the open market. | | I'm pretty sure the us sec will figure it out for us | esonoi wrote: | Gold is not a currency, it is a commodity that is similar | enough to a currency (meaning it can substitute as a | currency). ISO 4217 includes precious metals that it | explicitly states are not currencies. | | Currencies do not exist outside a monetary system. If I sell | you something, and accept skittles as payment, that does not | make skittles a currency. | jksmith wrote: | There was no ICO, it has an immutable fixed supply, it's not in | perpetual startup mode, and not centrally controlled | operationally and can't be bought back. | darksaints wrote: | So many of these HN conversations devolve into shit bonanzas | because so many people approach this topic as if it is a | "Regulation vs No Regulation" topic, instead of the more | appropriate "Bad Regulation vs Good Regulation" topic, or even | more appropriately the "Which agency should have jurisdiction" | topic. And it is a shame, because cryptocurrency has largely | outgrown the anarchocapitalist utopian's mindshare, and the | people involved that actually want no regulation are an extreme | minority now. | | You're spot on here. The vast majority of cryptocurrencies | (modulo a bunch of shittokens) are better described as foreign | currencies or commodities, and they should be regulated as | such. Unfortunately for the SEC, that implies that they don't | have jurisdiction, and that regulatory burden lies with the | CFTC. And from my handful of years as a commodities trader, I | would much rather have the CFTC involved than the SEC. The SEC | is too inconsistent...institutionally they act like a | primadonna that is interested in making headlines more than | creating effective policy. The CFTC is all business. They're | not perfect, but they are damn good at their job, and they are | transparent about what they do and how they work, and they | don't see enforcement action as a PR move, but rather as a way | to ensure functioning markets and common public interest. | | The Supreme Court seems to agree. The SEC has lost 4 out of | their last 5 SC cases on cryptocurrency. All indicators from | those decisions are pointing in the direction of cryptocurrency | being regulated as a commodity, which is pointing towards the | CFTC being the ones in charge. | | This case makes the news because that is how the SEC works. | They won't win this case, and they will cover up that fact by | doing what they always do...create more news. | anonymouskimmer wrote: | > And from my handful of years as a commodities trader | | If crypto was limited to commodities traders we wouldn't have | had nearly the number of problems we have had. | | > The vast majority of cryptocurrencies (modulo a bunch of | shittokens) | | You can't eliminate a huge part of the sector that the | exchanges are actively involved in trading. | [deleted] | m00dy wrote: | No one said Bitcoin is a security...The issue is that howey | test might be too old to work on cryptos. | thisgoesnowhere wrote: | What is too old about it? | m00dy wrote: | So, do you think everything is crystal clear ? | esonoi wrote: | I'm not a lawyer but work in the industry. | | This is a slightly incorrect interpretation. Not all financial | instruments are securities. Financial instruments are legal | contracts between an issuer and one or more holders + other | parties. If you own any stock in a company, you don't own part | of that company... what you own is a portion of a legal | contract that defines what rights you have as a shareholder and | what obligations the issuer has. | | Currency isn't a commodity. It's treated as a commodity because | they shares characteristics - you can buy and sell them over FX | market. It's a bit of an oddity because its value isn't solely | based on supply and demand, but stability and existence of a | central authority controlling its supply. | | (Opinion) Bitcoin, on the other hand, is a virtual Commodity. | It is not recognized as a currency. Similarly, gold is a | commodity but not a currency, though it does have a place as a | non-standard currency in ISO-4217. | | Commodities can be hedged against (oil futures) through | derivative products. Those are formalized through a legal | contract. | | Your notion of a financial instrument doesn't cover the fact | that it is the legal contract involving money that makes it an | instrument. | | But as others have pointed out that's not why the SEC is suing. | dforrestwilson wrote: | Getting sued to fall under govt regulation - and therefore | gaining imprimatur - seems like exactly what these exchanges | should want. | | We never regulated Beanie Babies. | mmastrac wrote: | I don't think Beanie Babies collectors tended towards the | libertarian part of the axis, however. | bannedbybros wrote: | [dead] | strangescript wrote: | I mean, that makes some assumptions about the overall | outcomes here. | spaceman_2020 wrote: | Bitcoin might be classified as a commodity, but nearly every | other crypto out there, especially anything with a premine or | any sort of revenue sharing, is pretty clear cut a security. | whimsicalism wrote: | I disagree that the line between 'premine' and what happened | with Bitcoin is actually all that clear. | | Sure, genesis block yada yada but Satoshi (if he were | alive/inclined) is still a multi-billionaire from behaviors | that are pretty similar to what we call premining. | 0xbadcafebee wrote: | pretty much everything can be a security, and everything is | securities fraud. ask Matt Levine if you don't believe me. | Retric wrote: | Binance was up for "money laundering and tax offenses" issues | because they deal with large sums of fiat money independent | from what's being sold. Replace Bitcoin with physical artwork | and you can still run into issues here. | | Coinbase similarly ran into issues not because they were | selling crypto but from related activities which fall under SEC | regulations. It's one thing to operate an auction selling pigs | or crypto, but when you start getting into 'related activities' | they don't necessarily fall under the same umbrella. Read up on | "Pork Bellies" and you might start to understand the issues. | ethanbond wrote: | I think the real crux of the issue is that these instruments | were designed to be confusing to regulate and, alas, they're | confusing to regulate. The error was in thinking that a | confused regulator says "I don't understand what's going on | here, carry on and rest easy" rather than what actually | happens: "I don't understand what's going on here, and until I | do -- on my schedule, not yours -- your business is always at | risk of falling on the wrong side of my reasoning." | foobarbazetc wrote: | Nobody is actually "confused" though. | | Crypto proponents (like every other industry that has come | before, and will come after) want zero regs. | | Everything else is just hand waving. | | Regulators clearly know (from these filings) exactly what's | going on. | | Congress needs to pass laws to spell out exactly what falls | under which new regulations. | | It's clearly possible (see: Australia, NZ, UK, EU, etc, etc) | xapata wrote: | Except I'd replace "whims" with "reasoning". | ethanbond wrote: | Yep that's closer to the reality IMO! Edited :) | dcow wrote: | I don't think the pure commodity coins (layer 1 networks like | btc, xch, etc) are confusing at all. You do work and get | rewarded with a digital commodity. It's exactly like digging | up gold, or tapping a tree for maple syrup. | | Then a bunch of crypto anarchists showed up and started | speculating that these coins would be worth a lot in the | future because we could topple the financial hegemony by | their powers combined. Okay whatever, still commodity | trading. | | Then we started getting all these fake Ponzi coins that are | standing in for something else. That's a _security_. | | What is possible with e.g. BTC is that it's easy to trade at | scale. A commodity that's easy to trade isn't a security, but | if you squint it kinda looks like one. Regardless, it's not | crypto's fault that regulators are having a hard time | understanding it. That's the regulators' and lawmakers' | problem. (So elect people into power who are your peers, and | who aren't 70 years old and have no hope of anything more | than a cursory understanding world from the last 20 years.) | | But, of course they're not going to stand aside while people | get scammed. Only the anarchists want that. The rest of us | just want crypto to be treated fairly. | antasvara wrote: | Where the definition gets confusing is when a | cryptocurrency gives you voting rights to modify the | underlying protocol, or determine the direction of an | entity that manages the underlying protocol, etc. | | There isn't (AFAIK) a commodity that operates in this | manner. Owning a lot of gold doesn't mean that I'm able to | unilaterally adjust how gold is mined or obtained, for | example. | duskwuff wrote: | Or when a cryptocurrency has bizarre rules controlling | how it can be traded -- for instance, a number of | Ethereum tokens like Safemoon had rules enforcing a "tax" | on all transfers, ostensibly to reduce volatility. | davidgerard wrote: | > Then a bunch of crypto anarchists showed up | | they literally started bitcoin and were the guys mapping | out what they wanted from a digital currency over the | previous twenty years, this is well known history | dcow wrote: | My point is simply that crypto requiring a nuanced legal | treatment is not implicitly _by design_ even if it was | promoted as a feature early on by grifters and | anarchists. It's a technology like any other and it's the | regulators' job to create fair and appropriate treatment | for it (and our job to elect ones who will). | ethanbond wrote: | Bitcoin was literally designed to circumvent state | monetary systems and their affiliated controls. Almost | all the crypto descendants follow this path as well. | | So yes, it was _by design_ that it's hard to regulate. | dcow wrote: | What about bitcoin makes it any harder to regulate than | cash? | ethanbond wrote: | First of all, the _actual_ difficulty is not really | material since we 're debating whether it was a design | _goal._ Bitcoin came out of a long line of libertarian | /anarchist projects to circumvent state controls. I don't | know why you're pretending like this is some unique | interpretation of history. E.g. the problem that the | Satoshi whitepaper sets out to solve was ( _as cited in | the whitepaper_ , source [1] in the footnotes) laid out | with this preamble: | | > I am fascinated by Tim May's crypto-anarchy. Unlike the | communities traditionally associated with the word | "anarchy", in a crypto-anarchy the government is not | temporarily destroyed but permanently forbidden and | permanently unnecessary. | | Secondly, a lot of features make it harder to regulate | than cash. Off the top of my head, being able to | transport it over national borders via the Internet. | Storing arbitrarily large amounts of it in zero physical | square meters. Keeping it relatively secure without | having to rely on third parties (banks) gaining knowledge | of your ownership, etc. etc. | dcow wrote: | Bitcoin isn't any different than cash except it's got a | decentralized public immutable ledger and therefore isn't | a bearer currency. But like cash its transactions are not | governed by an authoritative financial institution that | can repudiate and/or reverse them. (It's proven | effectively _easier_ to regulate than cash on the | tracking transactions front, though.) | | That's the "anarchy" the paper refers to. | | In the paper, the goal was not to topple governments. It | was to build a digital cash equivalent where the _payment | processing_ happened in a distributed and ultimately | trust-less "anarchist" manner. Thus allowing people to | transact as they do in cash, but digitally. | | All this anti-regulation no laws style of anarchist stuff | is downstream. Sure it's adjacent, but also easily | conflated. | | Anyway, to be super clear, being resistant to the rule of | law is a very different property than being resistant to | centralized control. | | Cash is decentralized. | | Credit, debit, ACH, are centralized. | | Crypto is decentralized. | | All are subject to the rule of law. But only centralized | transactions can be manipulated without coercion or use | of force against a one of the parties involved (if they | are unwilling to abide). | | I don't know any technology that fundamentally cannot | have laws created governing its use. It's just not | possible to prevent someone from legally regulating | something. But it is possible to design systems that | don't require 3rd parties to mediate transactions and do | require an actual authoritative monopoly on violence to | manipulate, as we've seen with cash and as is the case | with BTC. | [deleted] | lottin wrote: | But what on earth is a digital commodity? I think the whole | concept of digital commodity is nonsensical. | | A commodity is a product. Products are either consumed or | used as raw materials. A digital commodity is not a | product. It can't be consumed or used, because it's | entirely imaginary. | | I think a better term is "abstract unit of account". | dcow wrote: | Respectfully, I think your understanding is behind the | curve. Even the SEC says BTC _itself_ is a commodity. | | You consume a BTC by using/trading it. You consume gold | or maple syrup by using/trading it. Just because the uses | are a little different doesn't mean it's incompatible | with the definition of commodity. If I started using gold | in a _nonsensical_ way you wouldn 't start saying "oh now | it's a security", would you? | mulmen wrote: | I think the hangup with BTC as a commodity is that I can | make a loaf of bread with wheat and eat it and the amount | of wheat in the world is depleted as a result. Similarly | I can use gold to build a cell phone or some jewelry and | while it is possible to recover it isn't as simple as | trading BTC. How is a BTC _consumed_? | scottiebarnes wrote: | The majority of gold usage is in investment/central bank | reserve. Technology applications are a fraction of the | usage. Jewelry is a major usage, however part of the | reason for its use in jewelry is a hybrid combination of | its store of value properties (ex. in Indian culture | afaik, gold jewelry plays a large part in passing down | wealth, families gift gold jewelry at weddings etc.). | | So you consume bitcoin the same way a central bank | consumes gold: by sitting on it, selling it when you need | to, or buying more in times of expected turmoil. | | Bitcoin is far younger than gold (12 years vs thousands), | so its obviously more volatile. | | https://www.statista.com/statistics/299609/gold-demand- | by-in... | mulmen wrote: | Trading something doesn't consume it. That's a very | confusing overloading of terminology. | scottiebarnes wrote: | Well consumer comes from the base word consume, which by | definition includes the buying of a good or service, | which is essentially a trade. | | Consume: | | - eat, drink, or ingest (food or drink). | | - buy (goods or services). | | - use up (a resource). | | - (especially of a fire) completely destroy. | | - (of a feeling) absorb all of the attention and energy | of (someone). | mulmen wrote: | I was asking an honest question but I don't like being | trolled. Have a nice day. | skinnymuch wrote: | How would you be trolled? You asked and you got answered. | What are you disagreeing with? | mulmen wrote: | None of these responses answer the question. | scottiebarnes wrote: | Not sure why you think you're being trolled. Have a good | one. | dcow wrote: | You're not bing trolled? Wat. | [deleted] | jallen_dot_dev wrote: | Technically the thing you hold and use is a transaction | output, and once an unspent transaction output (UTXO) is | spent it can't be spent again. So from that perspective | it is consumed! | [deleted] | ryathal wrote: | BTC is consumed when someone forgets their password. | ethanbond wrote: | Commodities are usually raw/close-to-raw inputs into some | process. Bitcoin doesn't really meet that, but again the | whole point is recent technological innovations haven't | really settled into the language yet. | | And again, that is _by design_ of both the instruments | themselves _and_ the massive PR campaigns /grifts around | them. | | The whole trick is attempting to position these things as | "the half of the definition of commodity that means this | has intrinsic value but not the other half of the | definition which says it's a raw input," or "the half of | the definition of a security that means You Can Make | Money, but not the other half that says I can be | regulated as someone selling a You Can Make Money | instrument." | thisgoesnowhere wrote: | This is my read as well. However,I think if you regulate | the security like stuff in the same way we regulate | existing financial instruments the whole thing collapses | anyways, so who really cares what we call this specific | coin. | [deleted] | JumpinJack_Cash wrote: | You can consume a Fortnite skin or a Call of Duty weapon. | | The point is that you cannot consume crypto, it's a | problem which is understood inside the community, that's | why the push for NFTs which started as legitimate art to | enjoy on huge 8K screens or VR headsets but quickly ended | up becoming Twitter avatars built for the purpose of | trading and offloading to a bigger fool. | dcow wrote: | You consume it by trading it or, for a direct analog to | your example, by showing off your wallet balance. Your | Fortnite skin is no more consumable than a BTC. It just | has a different value and use. | lottin wrote: | Trading a commodity doesn't consume it. If I trade a | hamburger, the hamburger isn't consumed. It's only | consumed when I eat it. | JumpinJack_Cash wrote: | > > You consume it by trading | | Hence the SEC is right to clampdown on crypto for | violations of securities law, in order to prevent bubbles | that emerge when the only use for something is trading it | for something else. We already have that, people who want | to participate in that game know where to go, the stock | market. | | > > for a direct analog to your example, by showing off | your wallet balance | | That's the most circular thought I've ever heard. | [deleted] | skinnymuch wrote: | Do you mean libertarians or the contradictory "ancaps"? | What does anarchist mean to you in your writing? Or why use | that word? | | Any examples of anarchists doing what you're saying for | extended periods of time like cryptobros would be helpful | to understand. | | Thanks. | this_user wrote: | I think it's more a case that anyone who was involved in | crypto early, and who has actually taken the time to | understand the technology, has realised about a decade ago | that crypto currencies are mostly useless. | | But then people had they idea that they could still make | money from it by grifting people if they just added layer | upon layer of complexity in order to disguise the ultimate | uselessness of the underlying technology. That is where all | of your Ponzis, rugpulls, NFTs and everything else comes | into the picture. | dcow wrote: | Meh, I'm no bull but I also don't think "cryptos are | mostly useless" is accurate. I believe there are solid | use cases for _distributed global ledger_ and _digital | replacement for cash_. Is Bitcoin the winning /best | manifestation? I doubt it, we likely need something much | more energy efficient (like Chia is trying to be). But I | don't think the idea is bust. It just isn't as | overwhelmingly applicable as people dreamed it might be. | We're trying out use cases, vetting the good ones and | sometimes painfully learning the which ones were stupid | or bad ideas. And once all the speculation settles, I do | think true currency is still a viable one. Logistics and | markets are another, etc. | acjohnson55 wrote: | I think that it's still unproven that a distributed | global ledger is actually a fundamentally useful thing, | outside of speculation. We're 15 years out from the | invention of Bitcoin, and if all of blockchain technology | snapped out of existence today, there are very few | people, other than speculators, who would be impacted. It | has comprehensively failed to be adopted into any value | chains. | thisgoesnowhere wrote: | I don't think anyone here is arguing that digital cash or | a global ledger is bad they are arguing that the specific | structures and incentives of crypto are bad. | | Bring on the digital cash IMO but bearer instruments | underpinning any large scale finance is a recipe for | disaster. | whimsicalism wrote: | > I think it's more a case that anyone who was involved | in crypto early, and who has actually taken the time to | understand the technology, has realised about a decade | ago that crypto currencies are mostly useless. | | I don't know what it is about crypto that makes HN | commentators want to make the most ridiculous, put-downy | statements without evidence to back it up. | | Crypto is not mostly useless, it is just that people | don't like the uses. crypto is absolutely massive for | avoiding capital controls in countries with inflation, | etc. | ohgodplsno wrote: | [flagged] | whimsicalism wrote: | Yes, evading capital controls is illegal, part of the | informal economy in large parts of the world, and very | helpful to many people. | | I also think there are useful legal uses, but yes - where | crypto has the best comparative advantage is when people | are trying to circumvent harmful laws. Not every country | is a (relatively) well-run procedural democracy. Crypto | helps people route around that. | throw9away6 wrote: | Also in low trust transactions. Often you have low trust | buyers that need to pay via irreversible transactions and | crypto is cheaper and more secure | JumpCrisscross wrote: | > _Crypto is not mostly useless, it is just that people | don 't like the uses_ | | Crypto has legitimate use as a rebel medium. It's also | plagued with criminality. Its promoters had a decade to | clean up its act and refuse to self regulate. | | That's soured the public's mood towards the whole | enterprise. If crypto's benefits are niche, its | development should be niche. And if its sole | beneficiaries are people in failing foreign countries, it | might make sense to put the whole thing under the aegis | of State versus continuing to create chaos from the | private sector. | arcticbull wrote: | > Crypto has legitimate use as a rebel medium. | | This only applies to literally one or two | cryptocurrencies, stuff like Monero. They're very much | the exception to the rule. Most cryptocurrencies like | Bitcoin and Ethereum just publish the entire ledger which | is constantly being pulled in by the PLA, the SEC, the | FBI and myriad other law enforcement authorities the | world over. Not to mention Chainalysis. | | If the government that's oppressing you is capable enough | to oppress you they're more than capable enough to, in | the fullness of time, deanonymize your transactions and | send you directly to jail for them. You're not just | defending against the current start of the art tech but | all future improvements - against an adversary with | dramatically more resources than you have. | | Illicit transactions on public ledgers are simply | prosecution futures. People get jail time constantly for | crypto transactions. | | If I were a dissident in a country like the PRC | hypothetically, I'd run like hell from crypto. Talk about | asking for trouble. | | That's before we even get to the point of how you plan to | acquire these currencies without the government noticing. | | They have a use: gambling and speculation at a massive | decentralized offshore casino. Coinbase and Kraken are | the cage. Binance, for example, and DeFi are the table | games. | acdha wrote: | > I don't know what it is about crypto that makes HN | commentators want to make the most ridiculous, put-downy | statements without evidence to back it up. | | HN has many people who understand how technology work and | a smaller but still large number of people who understand | economics. Cryptocurrency has a few people like that but | also a ton of get-rich-quick types who think their best | work is making random claims until someone buys whatever | they're selling. We're a decade and a half into that, | with billions of dollars of real money pumped in and | almost no benefit outside of some early investors being | able to cash out before the inevitable dip. | | At this point, the onus is on anyone promoting | cryptocurrencies to show up front why they're different | than their waves of predecessors. One big challenge here | is the inherent conflict of interest: unlike other things | which have come in and out of popularity, someone who | tries cryptocurrency but realizes it's not really useful | to them doesn't have an option for getting out without a | financial loss which doesn't involve finding a buyer for | something they know isn't really worth the price. If you | backed MongoDB a decade ago, you can just switch to | Postgres without either eating a loss or finding someone | to buy your old Mongo server. | | This also leads me to your next sentence: for years, the | claim was that cryptocurrency was going to transform the | financial world and beyond. Sales guys went on at length | about how you'd use blockchains to buy coffee and a ride | to work, make sure the farmer who grew your coffee beans | was organic, store your software licenses, record the | deed to your house, etc. They couldn't explain how any of | that would work and dismissed criticism, and were | especially upset if people said the only real use cases | seemed to be illegal transactions. Now, in 2023 we're | back to the primary use being breaking laws, hoping that | the government in question chooses not to monitor | cryptocurrencies? | | > Crypto is not mostly useless, it is just that people | don't like the uses. crypto is absolutely massive for | avoiding capital controls in countries with inflation, | etc. | JumpinJack_Cash wrote: | > > crypto is absolutely massive for avoiding capital | controls in countries with inflation | | Inflation hedge means mantaining parity against a | weighted basket of stable currencies such as | USD/EUR/CHF/JPY. Maybe gold? | | Bitcoin didn't mantain parity at all, it's up some | 20,000% since 2013 and +[?] since its inception. | | So crypto failed as inflation hedge too, because the | world of finance is very specific, you can't say 'this | asset is an inflation hedge' and then it's up 20,000% | | It also failed as a tool for capital controls and tax | evasion because if you do that sort of things you don't | want publicity...what happened is that crypto-bros and | crypto-enthusiast went on to scream off the top of their | lungs and it resulted in the death of the largest capital | control avoidance use case: getting money out of China. | | Nobody uses Crypto for getting money out of China | anymore. | whimsicalism wrote: | > Bitcoin didn't mantain parity at all, it's up some | 20,000% since 2013 and +[?] since its inception. | | Dai and other stablecoins maintain parity and are what is | mostly used. | | > It also failed as a tool for capital controls and tax | evasion because if you do that sort of things you don't | want publicity...what happened is that crypto-bros and | crypto-enthusiast went on to scream off the top of their | lungs and it resulted in the death of the largest capital | control avoidance use case: getting money out of China. | | I don't know what to tell you, these are heavily used | behind-the-scenes in the dollar black market in places | like Argentina, etc. | | > Nobody uses Crypto for getting money out of China | anymore. | | Yeah, the informal economy is not actually very large in | China, it's not a good example. | JumpinJack_Cash wrote: | > > Dai and other stablecoins maintain parity and are | what is mostly used. | | Dai and stablecoins are currencies issued by private | companies, if the private company sponsoring it were to | disappear, the decentralized and federated (or whatever) | community won't be able to support such a huge | undertaking. | | Besides the whole thing is pointless because whatever | authority or control system you are evading with crypto | sooner or later you'd have to come back into it, because | nobody sells food, water, shelter, houses for crypto. Nor | bitcoin nor stablecoins. Actually it's worse because the | authorities will be waiting for you at on and off ramps. | whimsicalism wrote: | Wrong from the jump about Dai, and I don't think you know | about how black market cash economies work - there are | plenty of informal economy places you can exchange local | currency for dollar, dollar for crypto, etc. | gen220 wrote: | I think people are latching on to the magnitude of your | claim rather than the direction and therein missing the | point. FWIW, as somebody who meets your criteria, myself | and my network of people from that time offer much | credence to your claim. | | Even back in 2016/17, many people involved were openly | bemoaning how 80+% of ICOs were unregistered security | offerings to vaporware. | | You can almost pinpoint the inflection point at which | Coinbase decided their goal was short-term profit | maximization vs developing a healthy ecosystem. The | company in the last 5 years is completely unrecognizable | in contrast to when there were only 3 coins you could buy | from them (USDT, BTC, ETH). | foobarbazetc wrote: | It's kind of interesting that the "commonwealth" countries | (AU/NZ/GB/CA) have different classifications of crypto (AU/NZ | treat them as property, CA as securities, GB varies depending | on the thing). | | The SEC filings do give the rationale for why _specific_ coins | are securities though. | | Hard to summarize each filing though. Worth reading because, | unfortunately (?), they make a good case. | Consultant32452 wrote: | Are there any crypto tokens not backed by a state that the SEC | has officially and clearly declared a currency and not a | commodity? | | I'm starting to feel, as a practical matter, they will never | consider non-government backed crypto a currency regardless of | what the rules on paper are. But maybe this has already | happened and I'm ignorant, I don't follow this space closely. | retrocryptid wrote: | My experience with Coinbase led me to ask people "where do I sign | up for the class action law suit?" so this is welcome news. | sebzim4500 wrote: | That's interesting. What did Coinbase do to you exactly? | paulpauper wrote: | Crypto is like the worst investment ever: huge legal risk, does | not hedge inflation, not a safeguard in crisis, does not benefit | from tech/ai boom, does not generate profits. Only downside, no | upside, no strengths, only weaknesses. | | the chart is only one direction: down | | The obvious weakness of bitcoin relative to QQQ demonstrates | this. A daytrading pair trade method that shorts Bitcoin in | market hours and goes long qqq would have cleaned house over the | past year, including a huge win yesterday. i was running this and | made a lot. | | Who goes against the fed. government and wins? big tobacco | couldn't do it. neither could the auto industry. | awaythrow483 wrote: | This is an obvious troll. Bitcoin has absolutely stomped $QQQ | of $NDX over this period as basically every other person here | is pointing out. | EddieEngineers wrote: | This is true when it's going down and false when it's going up. | Do the same analysis of previous years during bull crypto | markets and does this hold up? | paulpauper wrote: | bitcoin's performance since late 2017 lags QQQ. the rolling | 5-year returns have gotten way worse. Much of the gains were | from pre-2018. many people five years ago were predicting | six-figures by now, nowhere even close. | EddieEngineers wrote: | Huh? BTC is up 56% YTD, QQQ is up 34.5%. Over five years | BTC is up 300%, QQQ is 100%. Over life BTC is 7850% while | QQQ is 570%. Today QQQ is up 0.12%, BTC is up 0.95%. | | I don't know which slice you want to compare but general | holds of BTC have outperformed QQQ significantly, even | today it's done better while it's two largest exchanges | have been sued by the SEC. | paulpauper wrote: | bitcoin peaked at 20k in 2017. it is only up 30 percent | to 26k. QQQ is up a lot more. over 5.5 years of weak | performance. The major problem with bitcoin are the huge | declines like in 2018 and 2022. It stopped going up as | much anymore either like it did in 2013 or 2017. | vagab0nd wrote: | This reminds me of those "biggest X since Y" headlines. | No matter how insignificant the event, you can always | write a clickbait-y title. | EddieEngineers wrote: | But you've picked the very peak of a previous bull run | against a dip of a bear market... QQQ peaked in 2021 at | $404 but is now at $355 so it's down 15%. This is just as | relevant as what you're saying but obviously doesn't | capture the whole picture? QQQ dipped from $101 to $20 | once which is a huge loss, larger than BTCs largest dip | as a percentage, but again that doesn't really tell the | whole picture either. | | Not trying to be rude or argumentative here, I just | really don't understand your point. | awaythrow483 wrote: | Let's layout the fallacy here because it is trivially | obvious: | | You are cherry picking the exact top for bitcoin while not | doing the same thing for QQQ. | | You mention 5 years ago so lets use your arbitrary data | point: | | Bitcoin was floating between 7500 and 6500 this week 5 | years ago. Let's use the upper end. Bitcoin is up well over | 300% over this period. | | QQQ is up 103.10% according to google over the last 5 | years. | | Nothing about adding the word "rolling" changes this. | flanfly wrote: | I'm not sure what you mean. BTC is up 29x since 2017 while | QQQ is up 1.8x | paulpauper wrote: | it went up 20x in 2017. i said late 2017. it peaked at | 20k in dec 2017. | awaythrow483 wrote: | As pointed out above, complete fallacy. You are cherry | picking a handful of dates that support your argument and | those dates are completely arbitrary. | adsfgiodsnrio wrote: | Winning lottery tickets are a good investment. Losing tickets | are a bad one. | EddieEngineers wrote: | The probability of making money investing in lottery | tickets and BTC are obviously different | spurgu wrote: | > Who goes against the fed. government and wins? big tobacco | couldn't do it. neither could the auto industry. | | Millions of people. Not a centralized exchange like this. | Vecr wrote: | Pretty much any short is way worse, unlimited downside! If you | bought Bitcoin and stored it correctly you would be down less | than 100%. Buying S&P 500 is probably less risky though. | I_am_tiberius wrote: | I don't understand why even the hackernews community doesn't see | that this is all a political strategy to make sure the digital | dollar can exist. | zarriak wrote: | None of the time that libertarian beliefs could protect civil | liberties is it ever taken seriously. It exists solely to | launder corporate protections and deregulation. | | Nothing significant happen to the NSA after the Snowden leaks, | nothing significant happened to the FISA court. Also I don't | get how something like CBDC ever exists because of how powerful | Visa is. | __tmk__ wrote: | I doubt the USG is competent enough to have a masterplan like | that. This just seems to me like the actions of a person (Gary | Gensler) who personally dislikes cryptocurrencies and who is | trying to establish himself as a political player through his | "bold actions". | eggy wrote: | I know their are legalities I am not an expert in on finance, but | my conspiracy theorist is bubbling up given the failed crypto | bank, the SEC suing Binance and Coinbase, and the US and world | government move for traceable, government managed and controlled | digital currencies. | | I was at the first HOPE in 1994[1] at the Penn Hotel in NYC when | Eric Hughes (known for the Cypherpunk Manifesto) and others gave | a talk on cryptography and how it would be part of a future of | privacy and security for anonymous banking etc. I was so enthused | about getting rid of the middle man (a minimum of 4 or 5 entities | process your latte purchase at Starbucks and take a cut as well | as track you and your data trail). Government doesn't like this. | "What do you have to hide?" is a tired defense of prying eyes. | | Yes, there were a lot of bad fish in the pool, but the goal was | and is still good in my book. | | [1] https://youtu.be/v5kayD5IQQU | throitallaway wrote: | It's gotten to the point where political candidates (and | politicians) have to cover their tracks when paying for things, | lest they be criticized for their choices. If you ever want to | run for office you'd better never use a credit card at a porn | shop, McDonald's (it's unhealthy), etc. This applies to data | that insurance companies harvest from as well. | | I used to be one of those people that said "I have nothing to | hide and the conveniences outweigh the negatives", but I'm | getting more and more cynical on data dragnets as I'm growing | older. | timerol wrote: | Do you pay cash at Starbucks? | awaythrow483 wrote: | Bitcoin up 2% on the news despite people in this thread | explicitly saying "it made crypto price tank" in the thread | paulpauper wrote: | umm...check what it did yesterday. | awaythrow483 wrote: | This is an article about the SEC coinbase announcement. That | happened today. So I'm not talking about what happened | yesterday, I'm talking about what happened today, because | that is what is relevant to the article we are discussing. | | so, ummmmm..... like..... bruh. go check what it did today | ForHackernews wrote: | Alternative headline: Coinbase and Binance enter the "finding | out" phase of unlicensed securities dealing | x86x87 wrote: | Alternative alternative headline: the SEC wants to have their | cake and eat it too while "protecting" "investors" ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2023-06-06 23:01 UTC)