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.
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.
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.
Would you concede that?
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