The SEC doesn’t have to help a company which is actively skirting the law to craft its legal strategy. They do have to provide evidence to a court when they file an enforcement action. That’s how laws work.

The SEC can't declare everything a security, then enforce it without providing evidence or guidance to companies trying to be regulated, and then further make videos on twitter declaring that it's as easy as signing a form to be regulated (lying).

I've seen you before in threads and I know you have a giant anti crypto slant, but try to use some logic and not just cower when you see government acronyms without questioning them

Also news flash to folks in these threads, the rest of the world is pretty much on board with crypto and making pretty big advancements. Whether people like it or not, this is here and it's staying (by definition you can't shut down things like Bitcoin).

We either catch up as a country and allow innovation or we lost a pretty big future position.

LOL. It’s totally fine to miss out on the latest wave in Ponzi innovation.

The “rest of the world” is certainly not on board with crypto. China and India are blocking large parts of it. EU has new legislation in the pipeline. Even the Bahamas don’t seem quite as excited about crypto as they used to be…

Yeah yeah, I've heard this before (internet anyone?). EU does have new legislation which is great, it's something the US should have. China has been some activities but promoted others, and India has a corrupt banking system where you have to bribe officials to even get a license for anything, so not sure why you think that's a good example.

There are also many other European, Middle Eastern, African, and South American countries embracing and promoting crypto as a new payment system for various reasons.

The fact that you think it's just a ponzi shows how close minded you are and tbh not worth "debating" with.

Also the irony here I think for you specifically is Finland is one of the most crypto friendly countries in the EU lmao

I don’t see anyone in Finland paying for coffee with crypto. Or paying their employees. Or paying their mortgage. Or raising money for their company. You know, any of the many things that happen every day in the actual financial system; the things that make an actual economy work and produce wealth and wellbeing.

So what does crypto actually do, if it’s not used for anything productive even in the most crypto-friendly countries? The best that its proponents can offer seems to be “one day it could do X” and variations on “it will work when everybody does it right”, a position oddly similar to true believers in Communism.

Many years ago I used to be quite positive about crypto. Smart contracts sounded clever and useful. The more I looked at the technology and the people involved, the more obvious it became that it’s fundamentally deficient and controlled by scammers. Crypto has had many, many chances to prove itself, and as far as I’m concerned, it failed at everything and doesn’t deserve yet another chance.

How so? The KYC/AML attitude and invasive banks seem to make it basically impossible to function a business. Can't even use a cryptocurrency ATM without identifying yourself through a Finnish bank account and being a long-term resident, making them useless for travelers. Localbitcoins was originally one of the biggest services and it was destroyed by Finnish regulations: a "local" p2p trading service that hilariously banned people from even using cash because of the hostile Finnish environment

Nobody is on board with crypto. And while governments can't shut it down, they can strongly discourage people from putting money into it, by simply enforcing existing regulations, which is what I think governments will start to do now.

>by definition you can't shut down things like Bitcoin)

Tomorrow, the US government could declare that no US company can do business with Bitcoin or enable someone to do business. Effectively declare sanctions (similar to North Korea) against the entire ecosystem.

King Biden can do this without due process?

The courts have traditionally been very deferential to national security-based arguments. Whether you agree or not (I’m mixed), that’s the situation on the ground.

The Supreme Court has gotten way more libertarian recently.

Famously, the US banned alcohol and drugs and some states even banned homosexuality. In none of those cases did it work out as intended. The only meaningful outcome was the destruction of individual liberties. Hmm, maybe that was the real goal all along.

> the rest of the world is pretty much on board with crypto and making pretty big advancements.

https://www.reuters.com/technology/visa-mastercard-pause-cry... "Visa, Mastercard pause crypto push in wake of industry meltdown"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/01/28/faceboo... "The social media giant’s shuttering of the Diem project "

https://www.coindesk.com/web3/2023/03/13/meta-will-end-suppo... "Web3 Meta Will End Support for NFTs on Instagram, Facebook"

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/10/13/el-salvadors-bitcoin-holding... "El Salvador has lost around $60 million on its bitcoin bet one year into a nationwide crypto experiment. The use of bitcoin in El Salvador appears to be low amid the market volatility."

Want more?

I too can cherry pick:

https://www.coindesk.com/web3/2023/03/24/amazons-nft-plans-t...

https://www.cryptonewsz.com/what-the-recent-news-of-xrp-mean...

https://gagarin.news/news/blockchain-games-dominate-the-mark...

https://www.coindesk.com/policy/2023/03/24/el-salvador-presi...

https://fortune.com/crypto/2022/12/19/evolution-crypto-web3-...

Alright, let's see, what's the easiest to engage with in this , games.

https://www.marketsandmarkets.com/Market-Reports/blockchain-...

> The global Blockchain Gaming Market size in terms of revenue was estimated to be worth USD 4.6 billion in 2022

https://www.statista.com/outlook/dmo/digital-media/video-gam...

> Revenue in the Video Games segment is projected to reach US$372.00bn in 2023.

So that's about one percent of the market.

What you've cherry picked are wishful thinking articles about how everything will just be amazing and great in crypto land. Some day. You just wait.

The GP's citation of Visa and Mastercard are cherry-picking? What companies would be more relevant?

The source for those claims is "people, who asked not to be named". Could be literally anyone.

Meanwhile in the same article:

> That does not change [Visa]'s crypto strategy and focus, however, the spokesperson added.

and:

> A spokesperson for Mastercard said: "Our efforts continue to focus on the underlying blockchain technology and how that can be applied to help address current pain points and build more efficient systems."

Isn't it crazy how different those quotes are from the headline? I'd love to know who read those official company statements and then decided to write the headline with the claim from an anonymous nobody instead.

Also: https://twitter.com/cuysheffield/status/1630600556187099137

The OP’s original comment referred to the rest of the world, which I read as those outside the US. My understanding is that Visa and Mastercard are American companies with footprints outside the US yes, but they are still US companies.

You are making shit up. No one has adopted crypto in any economically productive manner. Only point of crypto trash is to sell more crypto garbage. It’s all one big disgusting circle of incest.

Comments like yours, reflecting the IQ of crypto shills, sound like they’re generated by some LLM. Assert big claims about what crypto is doing, draw strawman arguments comparing crypto to past technologies, but provide us with no concrete evidence.

What world are you living in my friend? I can speak for India, definitely. Crypto is treated like gambling, it has been brought under anti money laundering laws. The biggest sporting league in the country has banned any crypto association and advertising.

It is just a decentralised ponzi. The sooner it fades away from mainstream discourse, the better. It will live on in the fringes of the internet for habitual gamblers to continue to bet on.

Can’t they? It seems to be within their legal powers, and the elected officials directing them clearly approve.

No they can't, which is why they've been taken to court in the past and will in the future again.

Also to your elected officials point, no not all of them are happy and have spoken out on both sides of the aisle, and even other agencies like the CFTC have come out against the SEC in the last year for trying to enforce by action instead of regulation

Why should crypto currencies not be considered a security asset?

Because they don't satisfy the Howey Test, which legally defines a security.

https://kurtalaw.medium.com/the-howey-test-the-supreme-court...

The way the absolute vast majority of this cesspool is used satisfies all the criteria.

I thought the status was that BTC was considered a commodity, and basically all the rest were considered securities?

The chairman of the Commodities and Futures Trading Commission, Rostin Behnam, told the Senate Agriculture Committee on 09 March 2023 that Ethereum, the second-largest cryptocurrency next to Bitcoin, is a commodity. "We would not have allowed the Ether futures product to be listed on a CFTC exchange if we did not feel strongly that it was a commodity asset," he elaborated, stating that his agency has "serious legal defences" to support their case.

https://decrypt.co/123032/cftc-chair-says-ethereum-is-a-comm...

Ah, good to know, thanks!

Well, embarrassingly I made a typo, it should have been 08 March 2023, but no matter.

That is correct. Gary Gensler, head of the SEC, had publicly stated that he considers Bitcoin a commodity, not a security.

But it is not correct that "all the rest" are considered securities.

Also, the SEC does not determine what is and is not a security. That is determined in court. Gary Gensler can give guidance on what the SEC will take to court, but he is not the final word on what is a security.

All fair points.

Why shouldn't they just be considered currencies? It is something a group of people agree have value and they are willing to exchange with each other for goods and services.

The SEC does not care if you bring back Euros from vacation and they are worth more money when you find them in your backpack a year later and exchange them.

Because it isn’t a currency. Get back to me when we can agree that “I’m buying if you’re flying”.

You might be able to simulate a currency, but that does not make it so.

> That’s how laws work.

Not really. It's entirely reasonable to expect regulatory agencies to lay out in painstaking detail and with perfect clarity the necessary criteria for anyone to know what is or isn't within bounds, and not take 10y of mixed messages to do it.

Unfortunately for many people on HN, you should never start a business in a legally muddy sector and ask for clarification, because you should've known all along what the SEC was thinking or would've thought of!

To many people here whenever a crypto post is posted, it's unreasonable to ask for clarification from the officials who make and enforce the law.

Yeah this is bizarre. Imagine if a cop came up to you and told you to stop committing a crime. Being difficult and dismissing the assertion is going to land you in court. It’s your responsibility to know the law, and it’s certainly not the cop’s responsibility to spell out the public law for you before they can do their job. I don’t know what coinbase expected - actually I think they knew they had no case and are just delaying and trying to take the SEC down with them, given the attacks.

Your scenario is slightly off. It would be more like the cop stopping you and saying "you're breaking the law" and you asking "which law", and them saying "the law", and you asking "can you be more specific? Which law", and them saying "I'm taking you to court for breaking the law", and you're still asking "WHICH LAW?!?!?"

The SEC is saying "you might have securities, and your various businesses might violate our laws", and Coinbase asking "which ones and how?", and SEC basically twiddling their thumbs and saying, "fuck it, you're breaking the law", and Coinbase still asking "BUT WHICH ONES?!?!?"

Fun fact: If the cop told you "don't worry, you're not breaking the law, let me help you" it still wouldn't be entrapment or unusual if they subsequently went after you.

just here to wish you good luck arguing with HN people on crypto. I've given up, there are a lot of interesting people writing on various topics but when it comes to Crypto, it's like coming into a MAGA group on Facebook and suggesting there is a better alternative to Trump. This doesn't end well lmao

Yeah not sure why I try, you get some really heated people who live in a bubble and think crypto has never done anything whatsoever, or others who expect it to have replaced global finance in the mere 10 years it's been alive lol.

The MAGA comparison is very apt

+1

> there are a lot of interesting people writing on various topics but when it comes to Crypto,

But when it comes to Crypto there's almost literally nothing interesting to come out of it except:

- scams

- ponzi schemes

- other get rich quick schemes

- schemes that ignore any and all reality

- schemes that are better done using almost literally any other technology (including Brainfuck and MS Access)

- Vitalik's long-winded essays that are either superficial takes on some distant future or technical reports on fixing something in ethereum

And yet for over 10 years now we've been hearing that "there are good and interesting things happening in crypto".

Edit: oh, there's some usefulness there as well: circumventing government rigulations to pay for something illegal, or to be an unregulated uninsured "at your own risk" alternative to Western Union or Moneygram

This is the US regulatory playbook unfortunately. Unlike in Europe and elsewhere, where regulators really try to be clear about what is and isn't ok, in the US the regulators seem to try to be as vague as possible and then just take action occasionally.

As such in new areas it does act to stifle innovation because people who are risk averse have to wait until someone else does something, the regulator enforces, it goes to court and the court decides.

When I worked at a fintech I actually was in a meeting with the OCC[1] and a prospective bank client we talked them through our plans and they said "when you get big enough you'll need to register with us and we'll have some requirements for you". We said we wanted to start that process right away and so asked for the requirements so we could start baking them into our software and they literally said "We'll call you when we think you're big enough. Until then we'll call you if we think you're in violation". They wouldn't tell us what the regulations were or how to proactively avoid breach.

This is entirely unlike other jurisdictions where you can generally find all the regulations on the regulator's website and in some cases (eg Singapore) the regulator will actively work with you on developing new regulation if they think what you're doing is innovative and valuable.

For example, here is the German crypto asset regulation. It's incredibly straightforward and easy to find. There is no grey area about what the regulator does and does not consider a security, what you can and cannot do and what existing national and EU regulation they consider to be included. [2]

[1] I should say this was not crypto related but this is a playbook that US financial regulators seem to adopt broadly

[2] https://www.dechert.com/content/dam/dechert%20files/knowledg... or https://www.nortonrosefulbright.com/en/knowledge/publication...

This seems to come down to whether you hold, or are willing to be convinced to agree with, the opinion that unelected politicians should have arbitrary decision-making power that pass/fail corporations.

Yeah, CoinBase just sent out a big email a few days ago on all this, too. This article is a hit piece, and I don't even LIKE crypto.