What crackdown? The SEC has only charged actual scammers and they’ve “requested information” from the legitimate players to figure out how to proceed. Other than some bad calls by sanctioning software, there’s hardly been anything considered a “crackdown.”
That means, in Republican speak, that they will allow anyone to scam anyone without repercussion.
Republicans love a good scam
Next up is the dismantling of the ACA. They will roll out these amazingly cheap alternatives. Health insurance for $10 a month!
So the poor and the stupid will sign up. They’ll go to the bar and saunter up to a “libtard” and tell them that trump fixed everything.
Then when they get sick and try to use MAGA super plan plus premium they won’t be able to find a doctor. The $10/month plan only covers an annual trip to a CVS minute clinic. They’ll go on Facebook and write up how the goddamn liberals tricked him. Other faithful republicans will pray for them and tell them that it must be a glitch because trump made things better.
The con will win because it’ll only hurt those without power.
I don’t know why this is being taken at face value with so many upvotes. The Gensler SEC was right to go after actual scammers and ponzis, but they went much further and clearly had an agenda.
Gensler targeted the most reputable exchange in the US alleging that their core business is illegal, because the Gensler SEC decided to classify crypto assets as securities rather than define a new regulatory framework that actually fits.
https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2023-102
Coinbase wanted to follow the rules and spent years asking for clarity. Rather than provide clear rules, the SEC provided a lawsuit.
There wasn’t a need to “define a new regulatory framework that actually fits” because, funnily enough, the existing regulatory framework already fits. It turns out, inventing new words doesn’t actually change the fundamental nature of the thing you’re describing. Refusing to call something an “investment” doesn’t change the fact that you’re selling an investment, refusing to call something a “security” doesn’t prevent it from being a security if it meets the definition.
Edit: Sorry, let me address that ridiculous point about Coinbase “asking for clarity” directly. Yes, Coinbase repeatedly “asked for clarity” in the same manner as a dude in a girl’s DMs repeatedly asking for nudes while being told in the bluntest of terms to fuck off. They were given perfectly clear answers, they just didn’t like them, so they kept claiming, with zero fucking basis, that these will laid out rules that every financial institution has been following for decades were somehow “unclear” to them. It was a conversation not unlike a Sovereign Citizen trying to get out of a speeding ticket by claiming that they don’t understand where the officer’s authority comes from. The law is prefectly clear. If you don’t understand the law, you hire a lawyer who does. That’s a cost of doing business. Sticking “smart” in front the of the word “contract” doesn’t suddenly invent a whole new field of law. I can’t suddenly get away with murder because I call it “crypto murder”. The law is based on what you do, not what you call it.
That’s fair, but hardly so aggressive that I’d call it a “crypto crackdown.”
But it’s hardly unexpected to see lawsuits around unsettled law. Everyone should expect more as we start settling case law and bringing crypto inline with existing law.
Also, wasn’t it mostly centered around their non-exchange activities? Press release specifically mentions their “Staking-as-a-Service” offering. Not that I see anything wrong with it, but I could see how that could be considered a security. Doesn’t really pass the Howey test.
One thing that stopped me from using it is that every single crypto transaction needs to be reported on your US tax return due to the way profits from the coins are taxed in situations where the value increases. It is annoying to have to compile all the data. If that changes, I will probably start using crypto again.
