Hacker News Reader

Comment by psychlops | Hacker News Reader

Do you actually mean to say that a regulatory body should publish who they suspect is committing fraud or am I mis-reading your comment? Given they have a limited time to review select entities and a limited view into them, that would be an impossible feat, not to mention the legal liability if/when they were wrong.

View on HN

Parent in context was saying the regulator should communicate to the party under investigation, not to the general public.

I think the problem is that, let’s say the police drives past your house and sees a pile of bodies.

Then they check on you and find you are a serial killer and arrest you.

Now, if you were smart and buried the bodies, is the police supposed to knock on your door and say: “Good job, keep doing what you are doing because you are obviously doing nothing wrong, as evidenced by the lack of bodies on your lawn.”

They don’t do that, they simply drive past and probably assume you’re honest but reserve judgement until later.

As far as I can tell - FTX (at least international / not FTX.us) broke only 1 law - they broke their own terms and conditions :-

8.2.6 All Digital Assets are held in your Account on the following basis: (A) Title to your Digital Assets shall at all times remain with you and shall not transfer to FTX Trading ...

Excluding this stipulation, which they will be prosecuted for - what exactly the CFTC/SEC/NYSE/NASDAQ/Secret Service/DEA/Texas Rangers were meant to do about a company in the Bahamas is beyond me.

You mean the law(s) they broke involved stealing users assets? Reminder so, terms and conditions are not law nor is there any guarantee they hold up in court if challenged.

If their terms and conditions said "by depositing your assets on our exchange you are signing them over to us" then there would be no crime at all.

Terms and conditions aren't necessarily enforceable, and they really aren't necessarily enforceable when it comes to financial services, and they really really aren't necessarily enforceable when it comes to blatant fraud.

> Excluding this stipulation, which they will be prosecuted for - what exactly the CFTC/SEC/NYSE/NASDAQ/Secret Service/DEA/Texas Rangers were meant to do about a company in the Bahamas is beyond me.

The point is to look tough on crypto, so they can garner support for expanding budgets to deal with a new mandate. It's pure show.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com