We asked the SEC for reasonable crypto rules. We got legal threats instead

Re:We asked the SEC for reasonable crypto rules. We got lega... by Godel_unicode on Thursday March 23, 2023 @01:30AM (#35270827)

No they aren’t.

“The respondent companies are offering something more than fee simple interests in land…they are offering an opportunity to contribute money and to share in the profits of a large citrus fruit enterprise.”

https://recaldelaw.com/do-security-regulations-cover-real-es...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:We asked the SEC for reasonable crypto rules. We got lega... by simple-thoughts on Thursday March 23, 2023 @06:47AM (#35272692)

Yes, the courts don’t support the SEC interpretation of the Howey test, and the SEC has repeatedly lost in court. Your point is?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:We asked the SEC for reasonable crypto rules. We got lega... by Godel_unicode on Thursday March 23, 2023 @09:34AM (#35274549)

My point was 3 words. Which one do you not understand?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:We asked the SEC for reasonable crypto rules. We got lega... by simple-thoughts on Thursday March 23, 2023 @10:33AM (#35275439)

Something can both pass the Howey test and be considered a security by the SEC, but simultaneously fail to be a security in court.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:We asked the SEC for reasonable crypto rules. We got lega... by Godel_unicode on Thursday March 23, 2023 @01:46PM (#35278531)

By not passing the Howey test. Which they don’t, according to the only people whose opinion matters.

The SEC doesn’t get a vote.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:We asked the SEC for reasonable crypto rules. We got lega... by simple-thoughts on Friday March 24, 2023 @10:03PM (#35298400)

Yes, so the SEC guidance is irrelevant, and is just fear mongering to get people to pay fines they don’t actually need to pay.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:We asked the SEC for reasonable crypto rules. We got lega... by Godel_unicode on Saturday March 25, 2023 @11:16PM (#35310439)

That is correct.

[ Parent | on HN ]