News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Terra Luna crash: CTO of Tether welcomes fair regulation ... by olalonde on Wednesday June 15, 2022 @08:51AM (#31752174)
Why call for regulations when existing laws are not even enforced? If you run a stablecoin that claims to be backed in a certain way and it turns out to be a lie, that is fraud. If you promise guaranteed returns on an investment without disclosing risks, that is fraud. If you embezzle funds, that is fraud. The real problem in the crypto community is that existing laws aren't enforced. Why not start by applying them before calling for new regulations?

I am reminded of this video by Milton Friedman: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhgaPVO8aw8&t=63s

Re:Terra Luna crash: CTO of Tether welcomes fair regulation ... by Cwizard on Wednesday June 15, 2022 @09:14AM (#31752399)
Serious question: is it really? I always thought that crypto was specifically not rated as a financial asset and thus didn’t have nearly as strict regulation as other financial products.

For example what is the difference between 1% daily returns vs some cleaning product claiming it can remove all stains? I always assume both to be marketing lies. And I assume in both cases there is some fine print T&C that denies legal liability/contextualises claims.

I might be totally incorrect here but this is always how I saw crypto, unregulated, buy at your own risk, marketed products.

Re:Terra Luna crash: CTO of Tether welcomes fair regulation ... by olalonde on Wednesday June 15, 2022 @09:45AM (#31752787)
IANAL, but I believe the generic U.S. wire fraud law would cover the examples I mentioned. As to why it doesn't cover advertising a "cleaning product claiming it can remove all stain", I am not sure but my best guess is that it might not fully satisfy the "intent to defraud" or "material fact" elements.
Re:Terra Luna crash: CTO of Tether welcomes fair regulation ... by PragmaticPulp on Wednesday June 15, 2022 @09:34AM (#31752645)
> Serious question: is it really? I always thought that crypto was specifically not rated as a financial asset and thus didn’t have nearly as strict regulation as other financial products.

If someone makes a product that acts like a financial security, they are required to comply with securities laws. The laws don’t have to explicitly say “this also applies to crypto”.

This is what many crypto projects are being held accountable for as the enforcement agencies catch up. If you offer a security but don’t adhere to securities laws, you are breaking the law.

Of course, many projects sidestep this altogether by operating out of countries that don’t have such regulations.

> For example what is the difference between 1% daily returns vs some cleaning product claiming it can remove all stains? I always assume both to be marketing lies. And I assume in both cases there is some fine print T&C that denies legal liability/contextualises claims.

The difference is that financial products have a lot of regulations and laws beyond just marketing claims. The difference between an interest-bearing security and a carpet cleaning product is so huge that I’m surprised you think they can even be compared in terms of regulation.

Securities and financial law goes far, far beyond marketing claims. It’s entirely unreasonable to think that financial instruments can simply promise something and then not deliver it because they say “just kidding” somewhere in the fine print.