hackingforfun

> The fed IMO deserves a ton of credit for saving the American economy from a massive depression - twice so far since 2008.

I'm not sure I agree with this. I think The Fed stepping in after the stock market crashed in March 2020 gave stock investors an unreasonable expectation that stocks are safe. Stocks are a risk-on asset and should be treated as such. Right now many people treat them like a savings account. IMO we should've let the stock market crash lower so people understand that stocks are not risk free.

Also, we may not know all the consequences from all that money that The Fed printed yet. So far we are seeing increased inflation, which hopefully will go down when / if they raise interest rates again, but we'll have to see what happens. I think, if anything, The Fed having to step in showed that the traditional markets are a house of cards as well. Just like in crypto, people just want the of price of stocks to go up, but that isn't reasonable. Volatility is normal and sometimes there should be crashes in markets so that people understand the risks.

I agree and I hope this is the route that they will follow.

I know who Gary Gensler is and I respect him for the teaching he did at MIT. I'm talking about the staff of the SEC as a whole. In my opinion, they are not moving fast enough or keeping up with technological innovation. I'm just wondering, have you read Gary Gensler's comments at the Aspen Security Forum [1]?

I particularly like this quote:

"Before starting at the SEC, I had the honor of researching, writing, and teaching about the intersection of finance and technology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. This included courses on crypto finance, blockchain technology, and money.

In that work, I came to believe that, though there was a lot of hype masquerading as reality in the crypto field, Nakamoto’s innovation is real. Further, it has been and could continue to be a catalyst for change in the fields of finance and money."

I have not read, but will look up, "Rules for a Flat World". Thank you for the reference.

[1] https://www.sec.gov/news/public-statement/gensler-aspen-secu...

Reference [4] from my comment was about Kik. I think we agree there.

Also, FWIW, reference [2] from my comment was about Ripple / XRP, which I figured if any crypto project was a security, they were, since it was linked to a for profit company. I was not surprised to see that they were charged.

Anyway, I'd love for the SEC to say BTC is not a security, when asked a direct question about it, however, they have not yet, which is one of the reasons why I don't agree that the regulatory framework is clear, yet.

Ethereum also did an ICO so it probably was a security to start with (Gary Gensler said most ICOs are probably securities), but then Ethereum became decentralized enough, so then it's probably not still considered a security. So where do we draw the line for new projects? If they aren't prosecuted within a certain amount of time, then they are fine?

This is what I mean. It's a nuanced discussion. I don't think there should be scams, and it would be great if the regulators protected against bad actors. I agree that new projects should not market themselves like stocks / securities. However, in my opinion, not all cryptos should be considered securities. Based on all this, would you consider Bitcoin and Ethereum to be a separate class of assets? This is what I'm trying to get at. We can't group all crypto into existing securities laws. There probably should be regulation, but let's be clear about which ones are and which ones aren't. I have yet to see that clarity from US regulators.

It's a good point, and I think I would generally agree with this. I just wish the SEC was keeping up with technological innovation. At this point crypto is moving faster than they can keep up with, so I don't think they can accurately judge new crypto projects (or even older ones like Bitcoin and Ethereum), because they don't have the technical skill on their staff, or a modern regulatory framework, to understand and regulate it properly.

Is Bitcoin a security? How is something that is decentralized a security? If it was a security, should there be charges against Satoshi Nakamoto, who no one can reliably tie an identity to, and who might even be deceased? Or should the Bitcoin Core dev team be charged, in that case? Or should Bitcoin miners be charged? In my opinion, it's more nuanced than you make it out to be.

The way I'm interpreting what you are saying is that you would like if everyone would just abandon crypto and avoid it, because some / all of them could be considered a security (or because you and others don't like it, for other reasons, I'm not sure, exactly). The only way that it could be "clear" is if the SEC explicitly says which ones are securities, which has not happened, except for a few specific cases [1][2][3][4][5]. By the way, I'm for the SEC going after bad actors / scams, although I'm not convinced that that is what's happening with all of these cases, although perhaps some of them.

Anyway, since you mentioned companies, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here, and I generally agree that crypto companies should maybe reconsider the position of skirting regulation. However, if we are talking about the crypto ecosystem as a whole, then I do not agree. I personally think this is new territory and crypto will play an important role in the future of our financial systems.

[1] https://www.sec.gov/enforce/33-10715-s

[2] https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2020-338

[3] https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2021-172

[4] https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2020-262

[5] https://blog.coinbase.com/the-sec-has-told-us-it-wants-to-su...

> I believe people should make their own decisions, while the protection offered by the state should come in the form of education and catching bad actors.

I agree with this. I think education and prosecuting scam projects are both good.

Although I suppose one could also argue that to catch bad actors ahead of time, there needs to be a way for new cryptos to file with the SEC, to then be audited to see if they are legit. However, I just don't see the SEC being capable of that, at least not yet. Crypto technology is moving too fast for them to keep up. We also still don't have clarity on some basic questions like if Bitcoin or Ethereum are securities or not. Former members of the SEC have alluded that they are not [1], but there are no clear statements on this yet from the SEC. Maybe there need to be more legal precedents set, like from the Ripple case currently going on [2], in order more clarity to be provided and for the path forward to become more clear.

[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/14/bitcoin-and-ethereum-are-not...

[2] https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2020-338

Yeah, good point.

FWIW, I'm not saying Coinbase is right here, and I'm not saying deregulate it all. I do think regulatory clarity in crypto would be good, and possibly we should revise some laws that were made almost a century ago.

I do not have an actual proposal but I am not a law maker.

An accredited investor can bet it all.

The assumption that they are a bit more savvy is exactly what I'm talking about.

I think they are referring to accredited investor laws.

I would like there to at least be clarity on which basket it falls into, if not a new category.

> Fwiw, if you are arguing for a review of how existing laws should apply to crypto, I'm fully on board.

Yes, I think we are on the same page. I don't think crypto should be, or it is even possible to be, the wild west, indefinitely. Something should be in place, but we should have some clarity, and it would be great if the organization coming up with the laws understands the technology at a technical level. Gary Gensler seems promising, but time will tell.

Have you heard of Robinhood? They say the same thing that I'm saying here. It was one of the main reasons they started their company.

My point is disclosures are different in stocks vs crypto and we shouldn't just group them all into one category.

I'm just wondering, do you think that we should never refine our securities laws for new technology, ever?

> You're asking to defraud people.

I'm asking for people to have choice.

> This is not a matter of just 'risk' to you - you are allowed to take on as much risk as you want - you may need to be an accredited investor, sure, but you can still take on risk and invest in whatever you want.

This is not true. As an accredited investor in the US, I cannot invest in any crypto that I want to due to domestic restrictions.

FWIW, I'm not against regulation, I just find it funny that we think laws from 1933 are applicable to any technology released in the future. That seems completely absurd to me. I think crypto should have its own set of regulations. I'm not against the SEC going after specific scams, I think they should do that, but I think people should have choice of what they invest in.

If you miss that some of the laws are literally so the elite can stay in power, and the common folks have restrictions on what they can invest in, then I just can't take the rest of what you say about this subject seriously.

FWIW, I also invest in an S&P 500 index, so I'm not totally anti traditional finance.

Securities laws were about disclosures, right? Since many cryptos are open source, how is that immaterial?

I can't disagree more. Crypto is a new market that should have a different set of rules, based on new technology, and what is happening now, not in 1933.

> Now it should be possible to invest in highly speculative, risky things - sure - that should be up to you

This is literally all I'm asking.

Stocks were never open source code. Anyone can research a crypto, online. We don't need a walled garden for them.

I would like to be able to invest in whatever I want. As an American, I cannot, because US exchanges can't list all the cryptocurrencies that Asian exchanges can, due to fears that the coins / tokens could be flagged as securities.

How is this protecting me?

Yeah, I do still think Coinbase is the most convenient fiat gateway for US crypto exchanges (not considering their issues with support).

FWIW though, after one wire transfer on Gemini they will let you ACH transfer back and forth with the account you wired from. It works pretty well. (However, watch out for fees by using their Gemini ActiveTrader interface, similar to using Coinbase Pro vs Coinbase).

You can also use Plaid to link a bank account on Binance US, but it seemed buggy when I tried it. However, if that worked it would also allow ACH deposits and withdrawals.

I haven't used FTX US, but it looks like they also have Plaid integration that should support ACH deposits and withdrawals.

Wire transfers do seem to be the best option for deposits and withdrawals on Kraken. Some other options, including ACH, are available via their Buy Crypto widget (but it has higher fees, and apparently you can't withdrawal later via ACH).

Anyway, if you want another fiat gateway that supports ACH deposits and withdrawals, and you're fine doing one wire to authorize a bank account, maybe check out Gemini.

Thanks for sharing this. Looks like Senator John Cornyn and Senator Mitt Romney support the COVID vaccines, too [1]. Good to know.

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/14/us/politics/gop-covid-vac...

What you are saying makes sense in a limited context, however, applying it to changing mask guidelines does not make sense to me.

I think rationality is also figuring in all the factors, like an evolving pandemic and supply chain issues, but that's just my opinion.

I think you make a good point here that someone can be pro-vaccine while being against a mandate. I hadn't thought of it that way. I don't really see many Republicans going out of their way recommending vaccines though, either. Trump got his in secret initially.

That is why I used the word anecdotally. I was responding to a sentence that was also anecdotal.

Just wondering, are they currently lying about having made these guidelines before? I haven't heard anything about that myself. I also do remember some news articles saying the government's mask guidelines were so hospitals could stock up (maybe it was once they flip flopped, I forget, it was over a year ago, but I do recall reading that).

I think it's possible they deleted old content to make sure invalid data isn't out there on the web to be cached, linked to, quoted, etc.

However, if they really are lying now (i.e. making current statements) saying that they never flip flopped, then yeah that would be weird.

Yeah, based on what you said, I agree it was idiotic. I personally still don't think it's a hill worth dying on though, but that's just my opinion.

Yeah, fair, I still don't know what them recommending this earlier would've done though. It just would've made the shortage sooner, right? It seems that's what they were trying to prevent. I do get that people don't like that they were lied to though, and then mandates were hard to follow when implemented, if people couldn't acquire masks. The pandemic exposed, and continues to expose, issues with our supply chains. If there was an abundance of masks to start with, I don't think the government would've flip flopped on masks in the first place, but since supplies were what they were, I'm not sure there's a good answer here.

Yes I do understand that. I just hope people would put things in perspective and be a bit more rational. I think racism, bias and all that comes from people taking hard line stances on things, possibly things they inherited from their upbringing, political party, etc. If we take a hard line stance on this as well, I don't see what value we are adding. The way I look at the mask guideline was that it was a mistake but it was an evolving situation with the pandemic, so I understand why some of the actions taken, in retrospect, were not ideal.

I saw the flip flopping on masks and thought it was silly for them to do that. However, I also was not going to not get the COVID shot over that, because, based on my own assessment, getting the shot made sense.

Anyway, I'm just surprised a whole narrative was built around something I would consider really not a huge deal. Folks could buy masks anyway, even without them being recommended (I did). It's not like masks were illegal to buy or something.