Hacker News Reader

Comment by growse | Hacker News Reader

Where's the tax dollars to pay for this?

According to the article:

To make this palatable to the American public, those whistleblower rewards are not courtesy of the taxpayer; they’re courtesy of money seized from previous Bond villains. A portion of Binance’s settlement(s) will go to pay the whistleblowers at the next Bond villain. It’s a circle of life.

If the fines are high enough, seems like it could be self-financing.

Usually this kind of enforcement attempts to reimburse victims, or failing that, goes to general funds. Anything else is a moral hazard for enforcement (eg, USA local police confiscations)

Are you trying to say USA local police confiscations don’t exist at large scale?

No, I'm saying that they are an example of moral hazard.

Sure, but one that continues to exist after decades of being used no? It’s an example of folks not caring about that hazard and doing it anyway.

So? That doesn't mean the feds should do it too.

The local seizures are run under a Federal program. [https://www.justice.gov/afp/types-federal-forfeiture] [https://www.forfeiture.gov/]

That is why it is so prevalent everywhere in the US.

The feds use it too, extensively.

Okay - worse than I thought.

That's a fair point. From the point of view of the taxpayer, though, it's still a net positive.

The SEC is largely self-funded via fees charged to financial institutions. Funding increased enforcement of crypto entities doesn’t have to require more tax revenue.

> Where's the tax dollars to pay for this?

You're kidding right? The US government is one of the biggest holder of Bitcoin. They seized insane amount of Bitcoins. And the US is a country where capital gains are taxed. The US government is making a shitload of money when cryptocurrencies go up.

You cannot have it both ways: if you tax your citizens on their capital gains made on crypto, then you prosecute the scammers like SBF when they prey on US citizens.

I don't disagree, but you're arguing that the government gives a greater share of its tax receipts to the SEC. This is a question for Congress, not the agency. The usual assertion of "let's spend more money on x" results in the obvious question "instead of what?".

OP was suggesting that the SEC ramp up the rate of actions, which will need funding (at least, initially). I don't see Congress doing that?

The SEC is largely self-funded by fees on banks, no need for tax dollars.

A government mandated fee is an excise tax, they are essentially the same thing.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com