/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>53416197
friendly reminder that this jew will be top 5 in the coming hitman smart contracts

>>53416197
Designating things a securities was originally a neutral act, and the SEC was created with the intention of protecting investors from fraudulent securities by requiring would-be sellers to check in with the SEC so that it can verify that everything is on the up and up. Today, the odiousness of the regulation, and the fact that security-sellers refuse to register with the SEC so that they can tell you, the buyers, to rail against the SEC for threatening your investment with the "security" designation, have made the SEC into almost purely a threat. While people at the SEC do investigate fraud, it is has become a largely harmful organization that the government uses to pick winners and losers.
Notice how hardly anyone asks the question "is X a security?" neutrally, like when trying to determine a fact like "is 2+7 equal to 9". The real "question" is rather "is X a security oh God please no". This shows you that the SEC has become an actively harmful force for investors.

>>53416197
Their children and friends tell a different story. But, ftx them.

I'm not worried. He couldn't even take care of the most obvious security of all time (XRP).

>>53416197
Next year de santis will be in and nothing will happen until that with lame duck biden.

>>53416197
His face looks like stretched latex. Buy ether.

>>53416197
He always looks like his mother just caught him trying on her clothes.

>>53416197
Secure and soon private thanks to ZKPs
#1 spot will come this year fr

>>53416416
Maybe because it isn't. A lot more corruption when it comes the eth and sec.

>>53416259
>an actively harmful force for investors.
Did you notice how everyone got BTFO in crypto the last two years and virtually all projects are just vaporware with zero use case and no active users despite billion dollar valuations?

Yeah, the SEC sees nothing but massive unregulated hole waiting to be patched up.

>>53416416
What do you mean? The case isn't even over.

>>53416197
I can't wait to watch this kike swing from a gallows.

>>53417849
/thread

>>53417849
>Did you notice how everyone got BTFO in crypto the last two years and virtually all projects are just vaporware with zero use case and no active users despite billion dollar valuations?
Yes, and the SEC didn't protect anyone.
Not content with that failure, it's now it's used as a Sword of Damocles to destroy what value is left by the ominous-sound "designation as a security". You'd almost think, if you didn't know what they were, that securities were some sort of toxic waste, or writ of attainder.

Ethereum is one of my favorite unregistered securities

>>53416998
did you know he was the youngest ever trader to make partner at Goldman Sachs, he and his brother were both child prodigies
also that he was tasked with assigning blame after the 2008 crash as well as part of the cleanup cref after the LIBOR fixing scandal during his time as head of the CFTC
also did you know he has a net worth of approximately $150 million

>>53418248
>securities were some sort of toxic waste, or writ of attainder.
They are toxic waste for companies that made their entire business model on inventing tokens out of thin air, attracting retarded VC money in exchange for 80% of the tokens, promising the moon to retail investors while delivering nothing, and slowly offloading inflated value shitcoins on retail before they realized they "invested" in vaporware. For those companies, being labeled a security means they have to pay back all of the ill gotten gains they made from their imaginary asset. Obviously, most will be unable to do this and will declare bankruptcy.

Say what you want about the SEC, they're not perfect obviously. But this industry is a fucking dumpster fire and it's absolutely ridiculous to expect it to continue lying to the entire world and destroying people's savings without regulators who are expected to "protect investors" noticing and at least pretending to do something about it.

The point of securities regulation is one, because there is a asymmetrical information available to the promoter and buyer of traditional securities. That is the promoter has an informational advantage over the buyer. And two, is to prevent fraud because the seller of a security can just take the money and run.

In a properly designed, decentralized crypto, none of these problems exist. Ethereum is open source software. No one, not even the ethereum foundation (which doesn't control ethereum), has any informational advantage. And when you buy eth, you are paying money for the eth, there is no obligation the seller or the ethereum foundation, or anyone else has to you as a holder of eth, so there is zero possibility of fraud.

Not only is eth not a security, because ether is not an agreement or contract that can even be classified as an investment contract / security, but it would make zero sense to apply security regulation to eth. There would be zero benefit because there is already no possibility of fraud and there is already 100% informational transparency. It is also impossible to apply because there is no entity that controls eth. Who would file with the SEC? Who is responsible for the disclosures? What would even be disclosed that isn't already public information?

>>53420693
Everything you said is fucking stupid.

>eth is not a security because ether is not an agreement or contract that can even be classified as an investment contract / security
The definition of a security does not require a contract, although many securities are written agreements. It simply requires an investment of money in a common enterprise with the expectation of profit from the efforts of others. Holders of ETH literally expect the developers to accomplish various goals (e.g. "The Merge", "The Purge" and all the -erge milestones). They expect to profit from the successful implementation of these features. This is also true of historical features implemented into Ethereum. That's all that is necessary.

>There would be zero benefit because there is already no possibility of fraud and there is already 100% informational transparency.
I cannot even fathom the stupidity that would bring you to utter such a ridiculous statement. Sir, the Ethereum blockchain does not encompass all human activity. There are contracts, handshakes, messages, thoughts, intentions, deals, allegiances, biases, and a number of other critical elements that are not captured in a blockchain. Please, interact with people more.

>It is also impossible to apply because there is no entity that controls eth. Who would file with the SEC? Who is responsible for the disclosures? What would even be disclosed that isn't already public information?
Control and responsibility for the reporting of financial disclosures for securities reasons can be imputed on certain entities as a matter of law. You can imagine a world in which the Ethereum Foundation or a conglomeration of ETH developers are required to disclose certain activities and interests. Please understand, this is NOT synonymous with saying that these entities or people "control" Ethereum, it is just the imputation of legal responsibility for securities disclosures. Read a 10K statement to see what disclosures are required.

>>53416197
Hourly reminder that i will never pay a single cent of direct taxes in my life

>>53421266
>The definition of a security does not require a contract, although many securities are written agreements.
Never said that, retard. It doesn't require a written contract. It requires a contract / agreement in the abstract. Ether is not a contract or agreement or anything. By owning an eth token, you are in agreement with no one. No one has any obligation to you.

>It simply requires an investment of money in a common enterprise with the expectation of profit from the efforts of others.
That is the howey test, it has nothing to do with this because eth is not a contract (written or otherwise). Its like you googled for 5 minutes and think you are an expert in securities law.
>Holders of ETH literally expect the developers to accomplish various goals (e.g. "The Merge", "The Purge" and all the -erge milestones). They expect to profit from the successful implementation of these features. This is also true of historical features implemented into Ethereum. That's all that is necessary.
According to who? Are you the spokesman for all eth holders? There is zero expectations made when anyone sells their ether about future eth upgrades or merges. You can also fork eth anytime you want to implemented whatever changes you want. Its open source software.

>I cannot even fathom the stupidity that would bring you to utter such a ridiculous statement. Sir, the Ethereum blockchain does not encompass all human activity. There are contracts, handshakes, messages, thoughts, intentions, deals, allegiances, biases, and a number of other critical elements that are not captured in a blockchain. Please, interact with people more.
Huh? Ethereum is open source code. All smart contract are open source. Are you talking about third party scams or something, agreements/contracts made off chain? That has nothing to do with ethereum, retard. Ethereum is code you download and run. And you can modify it whatever way you want, and there is zero hidden information.

>>53421496
>Never said that, retard. It doesn't require a written contract. It requires a contract / agreement in the abstract.
No it doesn't. I already provided the Howey test to you. Why are you disputing it? Where does Howey require a contract? It doesn't. Do you dispute the Howey test being the law of the land in the United States for securities law? You have no basis for your statement.

>According to who? Are you the spokesman for all eth holders? There is zero expectations made when anyone sells their ether about future eth upgrades or merges.
I barely find this worth responding to. Do you see where you are? What is this board? Do you seriously think the federal government is going to ignore the fact that virtually everyone who buys these token EXPLICITLY talks about the price going up? You can find tens of thousands of threads about Ethereum price action here. Under 1% of the tokens on Ethereum or any other chain are actually used for the consumptive purpose they are presupposed to have. The "expectation" is about profiting. And virtually everyone who gets into this bullshit industry expects to profit from it.

>>53421496
continued

>Are you talking about third party scams or something, agreements/contracts made off chain? That has nothing to do with ethereum, retard. Ethereum is code you download and run. And you can modify it whatever way you want, and there is zero hidden information.
I feel bad for you, because you're clearly some idealistic kid who has no idea what he's talking about. But fortunately for you, you're exactly the type of person that securities laws were invented to protect.

Ethereum, like most/all code for now, was authored by human beings. It has human being developers who have spent years improving upon the code for the benefit of their shareholders - er, I mean, tokenholders, right. Ethereum was founded by human individuals who issued the token ETH to the general public. These humans promised large percentages of ETH to contractors, developers, and the Foundation. Tell me, regarding "hidden information", especially as it relates to contractors, do you know any of the specifics there? There are literally contracts from the early ETH days who received 250,000 ETH for their "services". Do you know who they are or why they got that ETH? Very little is known about these secret billionaires despite the Ethereum blockchain existing!! Hmm, curious.

What does the Foundation do with its money? Do you know that? Are you able to verify that? What if they made posts about what they did with the money. Helpful, right?? But would you be able to confirm it on chain? Are you sure that the transaction really matches up? What if there was malfeasance with the use of addresses to make it LOOK like certain things were being done?

>>53421496
continued

And the ultimate question really: would you actually have a legal right of action if any of these people on the internet lied to you as a tokenholder? I can answer that, as it stands now, no. Which is the best part of securities laws.

FINALLY, for the first time, these fucking lying pieces of shit can be held legally responsible for what they do with 95% of the wealth in crypto. Because for your information, you idealistic kid, the vast majority of major figures in this industry are just selling you bullshit to pump their own net worths.

ETH baggies have no idea what's about to come, kek.

>>53421886
>No it doesn't. I already provided the Howey test to you. Why are you disputing it? Where does Howey require a contract? It doesn't. Do you dispute the Howey test being the law of the land in the United States for securities law? You have no basis for your statement.
A security is an investment CONTRACT. All securities are contracts / agreements in the abstract. The howey test is court precedent to determine if a transaction is an investment CONTRACT. A sale of ether is not a lasting contract, it is a one time exchange of assets, and fails all aspects of the howey test. It barely makes sense to even apply the howey test since there is no contract besides simple delivery of the tokens and whatever was paid for them.

>Do you seriously think the federal government is going to ignore the fact that virtually everyone who buys these token EXPLICITLY talks about the price going up?
What does that have to do with securities law? You have no clue what you are talking about. Everyone talks about gold going up to. But gold is not a security. Almost everyone who invests in gold does so because they expect it to go up and make money. Yet gold is not a security. "Going up" has nothing to due to with something being a security.

>>53421897
Not sure what your point is. Eth is an open protocol. You can use eth to make a security, and transfers on chain may be payment for or tokens may be used to implement securities. Like a a piece of paper can be used to make a stock certificate. That doesn't make paper a security. Or wood a security. Some tokens or contract being made on chain that may be a security doesn't make ether a security.

>>53421915
>would you actually have a legal right of action if any of these people on the internet lied to you as a tokenholder? I can answer that, as it stands now, no
Right... because its not a contract. You are contracting yourself. Owning an eth token doesn't represent any contract or obligation anyone legally owes you. Compare that to a stock, which is a legal right to ownership of net equity of a company. Clearly there is a massive difference that you seem to partially grasp.

>FINALLY, for the first time, these fucking lying pieces of shit can be held legally responsible for what they do with 95% of the wealth in crypto. Because for your information, you idealistic kid, the vast majority of major figures in this industry are just selling you bullshit to pump their own net worths.
I have no idea what you're talking about, or who these "lying pieces of shits" are. But I think you are talking about scammers, which has nothing to do with whether eth is a security (its clearly not).

>>53421926
Nothing? Lubin has the SEC by the balls retard.

>>53422059
You are not up to date with your laws. Again, there is no requirement to have a contract. Howey makes absolutely no mention of a contract. The ONLY requirements are what I already mentioned: investment of money; common enterprise; expectation of profits; efforts of others. Ctrl+f "contract" = 0 results.

>"Going up" has nothing to due to with something being a security.
Have you read the LBRY case? You really, really should if you haven't. It gives a great perspective into how the SEC views this industry.

The LBRY case explicitly said that as long as the reasonable investor VIEWED LBRY as a security it was. As in, the reasonable investor invested money into LBRY, which was a common enterprise, with the expectation of profit, which came from the efforts of LBRY developers.

Could. Not. Be. More. Clear.

>>53416197
brinks is a security
eth is a cryptocurrency

>>53422109
>Again, there is no requirement to have a contract. Howey makes absolutely no mention of a contract.
A security is literally defined as an investment CONTACT by the securities act of 1933. The howey test is just a way the court determines what is an investment contract.

>LBRY case
Because the lbry team made promises about price and future work they'd do when they sold the token. The promises were the security, not the token which was just a token of ownership. When you buy ether on an exchange, no one is making any promises about future price. Whoever you buy ether from on an exchange owes you absolutely nothing after the trade. You can make an argument that the initial sale of eth back in the day was a securities offering, but you can't say ether itself if a security.

>>53422204
Ignore that anon. He's basically a retard making an argument that all oranges are securities.

>>53422204
>Because the lbry team made promises
The judge literally explicitly said that even if they didn't make any promises, it still would have been a security. Again, because of the reasonable investor meeting the requirements of the howey test.

If you can't wrap your head around the contract issue, then consider the legal concept of implied contracts. You can imagine token issuers or developers having an implied contract with holders to accomplish the elements of the roadmap. Are you happy now? Howey still doesn't require a contract though.

>>53422236
Anticipating a bullshit reply to me, I'm pasting the pertinent language.

https://www.crypto-law.us/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/Court-Decision-LBRY.pdf

>>53422204
>>53422215
see
>>53422293
Can you all shut the fuck up now? Your industry is bullshit and the SEC will take you down. Have fun!!

>>53422293
None of that applies to eth, so you have no point. And if the initial eth offering was a security, then the eth foundation pays a little fine, it changes nothing about anything else. It would be completely different if ether itself was a security. But its obviously not.

>>53422332
>then the eth foundation pays a little fine, it changes nothing about anything else
No, that is definitely not the end of the legal requirements to undo an illegal securities offering. If the OFFERING was a security, then the tokens are illegal securities. Therefore, any benefit derived by the issuer or other Ethereum-adjacent organizations that were paid in the ETH token are unjust enrichment.

The relevant legal entities would need to repay for all of the illegal services and goods it obtained through unjust enrichment of paying for them in ETH. And it doesn't end there, but my patience for this conversation does.

You have no idea what the fuck you're talking about.

>>53416197

>>53422078
What if the sec isn't in control anymore?

>>53422078
>had

Reminder that bitcoin is considered a currency.

>>53422316
Interesting that you're ignoring that the judge told the SEC they need to provide clarity on secondary market sales and they said LOL that's not what dis case is 'bout yer honor
>>53422378
They are.
>>53422483
Gensler will go after LSD, not ETH itself.

>>53422547
The SEC won the case, idiot.

>>53422547
They are at the moment, but it's not guaranteed they will be forever.

>>53422583
Hearing on the 30th on the motion to limit remedies is still coming up. You're clearly not following the case.

>>53422614
Scared aren’t you anon? Hanging your hat on procedural motions for leniency after already losing? Kek

>>53416232
>friendly reminder that this jew will be top 5 in the coming hitman smart contracts
I would love to see that!
These tyrant faggots ruin millions of lives!

>>53416998
fucking kek

>>53422215
but he is right. XRP is obviously a security.

>>53416232
Reported for threatening a federal employee and dunker of shitcoins

>>53416416
>>53417849
XRP isn't a security and you can suck my dick.

>>53422583
Oy vey aren't you tired of all this kikery? Let the people breathe.

>>53416197
Is there an organization that pays its staff by dumping its own token? Yes? Then it's a security.

All this arguing when Gaey himself said in September after rthe merge that ETH is "likely" a security

>>53424651
he was talking about staking services like what exchanges like coinbase and binance do

>>53424710
Sounds like cope

Ethereum is very gay, won't be sad to see it go lmao

>>53416197
Securities don't charge outrageous gas fees.

>>53426111
>too shit to be crypto
>too shit to be security
It's really over for eth isn't it

>>53421289
we're reaching based levels that shouldn't even be possible

>>53416197
HIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

>>53416197
I've always known that ETH will remain dominant until the next era. BTC, ETH and ALBT are my biggest bet for generations.

Hourly reminder that TICKER:BTC is the official digital commodity of White Boy Summer

>>53417849
Who cares. The gov shouldn't tell me how to spend my money. We dont regulate retarded simps who water their money on OF thots, why this?
>>53416197
Don't.care, he's still bald and ugly. Ugly people should not be in power.

>>53416232
B A S E D
A
S
E
D

Which NYC synagog you think he goes to ?