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 TylerE on Thursday March 23, 2023 @03:11AM (#35271407)

Seems like a fairly clear line can be drawn unambiguously.

If it’s, like Bitcoin, just a number in a ledger, it’s a commodity.

As soon as you attach any specific data to it, like a smart contract or tieing it to a single, tangible object like a painting, or paying rewards to people who bought before a specified time, it’s no longer fungible. It isn’t a commodity.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:We asked the SEC for reasonable crypto rules. We got lega... by pa7x1 on Thursday March 23, 2023 @12:12PM (#35277019)

Confidently wrong. Par for the course in HN.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:We asked the SEC for reasonable crypto rules. We got lega... by TylerE on Thursday March 23, 2023 @03:13PM (#35279872)

Such a detailed rebuttal.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:We asked the SEC for reasonable crypto rules. We got lega... by pa7x1 on Thursday March 23, 2023 @04:58PM (#35281172)

There is nothing to rebut. Your argument has nothing to do with Security's laws or the legal jurisprudence around it. It can be substituted by "if it starts with B like Bitcoin, it's not a Security" which contains exactly the same amount of argumentative power.

It takes significantly more time to construct a rebuttal than to produce a gish gallop of senseless arguments like the one above. So I will simply refer you to this link: https://isethereumasecurity.com/

[ Parent | on HN ]