Topic: 2013-06-23 Coindesk: CA issues cease-and-desist to Bitcoin Foundation (Read 2485 times)
June 28, 2013, 05:59:13 AM
Thanks, didn't realize that, I was under the impression we got it from second hand. Everything's cool.
June 27, 2013, 09:46:53 PM
Obviously the state of California did not do its research to find out that the Bitcoin Foundation (a non-profit entity) is not a MSB and nor are they transferring funds to and from people, except maybe Gavin and the other girl (whats her name?).
June 27, 2013, 04:03:31 PM
Blitz, see post by Stephen Gornick, (2nd from top). Looks like Jon Matonis announced it in Forbes less than a week after they got it, which seems like a reasonable amount of time to figure out the legal issues involved and formulate a proper response before going public with it.
June 27, 2013, 09:05:45 AM
Further, insider trading can be a good thing. Read up on free markets Any trading, "insider" or not, adds information to the market and assists in price discovery.
And yet, the moral and most efficient thing to do would be to release the information right before you act since otherwise it's not a level playing field for all market participants. Moreover, it would actually be in your interest to actively suppress the information until you have taken position. I don't think being an insider in the dev team or the foundation entitles one to an information asymmetry that you exploit for personal gain. Any trading, "insider" or not, adds information to the market and assists in price discovery.It's scary that an important person such as you would think that way, even if you didn't act on this particular case.
Transparency is good. It's a disappointment we didn't get to know it first hand.
June 26, 2013, 12:42:16 PM
Page 2, "Please advise us in writing within twenty (20) days of the date of this letter as to what steps you have taken to comply with this order." So they date it May 30 then send it out 20 days after it was dated. What the hell...
Governments operate on a, "heads I win, tails you lose" basis. June 26, 2013, 07:06:14 AM
Quote
The letter, signed by Paul Clayton, senior counsel at the Department of Financial Institutions (California’s financial regulator), gave the Foundation 20 days to respond, although it was only received last week.
I wonder if it would have been more appropriate if Bitcoin Foundation had released this sooner (e.g., same day). At a minimum, if someone at the Foundation learned of this order and then traded before the order was publicly released, that might be something another government agency might consider to be "insider trading".
Insider trading laws do not apply to currencies.
Further, insider trading can be a good thing. Read up on free markets
Any trading, "insider" or not, adds information to the market and assists in price discovery.
June 26, 2013, 12:46:50 AM
Quote
The letter, signed by Paul Clayton, senior counsel at the Department of Financial Institutions (California’s financial regulator), gave the Foundation 20 days to respond, although it was only received last week.
I wonder if it would have been more appropriate if Bitcoin Foundation had released this sooner (e.g., same day). At a minimum, if someone at the Foundation learned of this order and then traded before the order was publicly released, that might be something another government agency might consider to be "insider trading".
Insider trading laws do not apply to currencies.
June 25, 2013, 02:11:53 PM
Page 2, "Please advise us in writing within twenty (20) days of the date of this letter as to what steps you have taken to comply with this order." So they date it May 30 then send it out 20 days after it was dated. What the hell...
Governments operate on a, "heads I win, tails you lose" basis. June 25, 2013, 01:44:51 PM
@JohannSummers we are preparing our reply. We only received the letter last week, despite it being dated much earlier. (https://twitter.com/virtuallylaw/status/349026617236004865)
Looks like California likes to hold on to their C&D letters for a few weeks before they send them.
Looks like California likes to hold on to their C&D letters for a few weeks before they send them.
Page 2, "Please advise us in writing within twenty (20) days of the date of this letter as to what steps you have taken to comply with this order." So they date it May 30 then send it out 20 days after it was dated. What the hell...
June 24, 2013, 12:25:01 PM
Quote
The letter, signed by Paul Clayton, senior counsel at the Department of Financial Institutions (California’s financial regulator), gave the Foundation 20 days to respond, although it was only received last week.
I wonder if it would have been more appropriate if Bitcoin Foundation had released this sooner (e.g., same day). At a minimum, if someone at the Foundation learned of this order and then traded before the order was publicly released, that might be something another government agency might consider to be "insider trading".
June 24, 2013, 12:23:17 PM
@JohannSummers we are preparing our reply. We only received the letter last week, despite it being dated much earlier. (https://twitter.com/virtuallylaw/status/349026617236004865)
Looks like California likes to hold on to their C&D letters for a few weeks before they send them.
Looks like California likes to hold on to their C&D letters for a few weeks before they send them.
June 23, 2013, 11:28:33 PM
Quote
The letter, signed by Paul Clayton, senior counsel at the Department of Financial Institutions (California’s financial regulator), gave the Foundation 20 days to respond, although it was only received last week.
I wonder if it would have been more appropriate if Bitcoin Foundation had released this sooner (e.g., same day). At a minimum, if someone at the Foundation learned of this order and then traded before the order was publicly released, that might be something another government agency might consider to be "insider trading".
June 23, 2013, 08:24:35 PM
URL: http://www.coindesk.com/california-issues-cease-and-desist-letter-to-bitcoin-foundation/
Includes a couple quotes that other reporting doesn't.
Includes a couple quotes that other reporting doesn't.
Jump to: