1. At this stage of the game, there is not a lot new under the sun to discuss that is likely to alter people's opinions. I would say that I did think there were some good comments in some of the other posts about what constitutes a security by the legal definition, and helped me understand better the specific points of the SEC's argument. This story, though, is just about the SEC wanting to freeze Binance US's assets. To be frank, I don't think there is a lot of substantive things to discuss about this particular story.

2. I feel the need to roll my eyes whenever I see the "Well, it's well known HN hates crypto..." lamentations. I will only speak for myself, but I don't "hate crypto". On the contrary, I remember reading the Bitcoin whitepaper early on and thinking how brilliant it was. As time has gone on, however, I've simply come to the conclusion that most crypto technology has very little actual utility. I believe the primary thesis of crypto enthusiasts, that it can somehow "escape" the legal frameworks of human beings (the "code is the law" stuff), is just fundamentally wrong and misguided. I think things like NFTs are just dumb. All this coupled with the fact that the crypto "ecosystem" has drawn in the scummiest set of characters I can think of, and that I think its net utility over the past decade has been negative, just leads me to believe that most crypto technologies deserve to die. This isn't some irrational "I hate crypto" take. This is my (fair, in my opinion) assessment that crypto has little overall utility. I also think this is highlighted by the fact that the amount of real crypto utility that its backers can point to is extremely limited.

In general, I think the HN community is by-and-large quite rational when it comes to evaluating and discussing new technologies. I'm not saying it is always "right", and of course you always have fan boys on all sides, but I do think that reasonable, insightful comments about crypto still bubble to the top.