SEC is demonstrating how slow governments move to make any decision because too many in government need to cover their asses.
Topic: Isn't SEC Demonstrating it Hates Anything Decentralized? (Read 244 times)
SEC is not only caring about profits. I think what it values most of all is stability. They are pretty successful for a long time, so they believe they know how to continue being so. Taking the risks with new things, even if they are potentially profitable, it's just not their kind of thing.
It's not really about stability, because they have approved instruments just as, or even more risky than Bitcoin. It all comes down to how easy or difficult it is to combat bad actors in the crypto space, which in current times is close to impossible with how everything seems to be happening on Asian exchanges from which most of them are unregulated.
I'm not necessarily of believe that the SEC is out to work against Bitcoin, they just don't see it be a viable instrument within their jurisdiction. If people really believe that the SEC is against anything that's decentralized, be happy that they keep rejecting and delaying ETF's.
If it is decentralized, no one should be in charge of it - not even one country or regulator. Why then did SEC move against EtherDelta? So if they had the reach and influence, they could move against decentralized tokens such as Bitcoin and ether too? https://cryptoinfowatch.com/sec-takes-action-against-etherdelta-in-a-first-move-against-dex/
Etherdelta is clearly less centralised than conventional exchanges. It's also clearly not decentralised. If it was decentralised then no one could've been fined, but they were.
At the very least this bloke was hosting the site which makes him culpable. It's the same as torrents. Torrents can't be shut down. The people and sites that aggregate them can.
Isn't that what they really do? Ensure that everything is under control and nobody gets 'frauded' in any way? Anyway going back, the SEC doesn't seem to care about the potential real-world applications of proposal being endorsed to them; all they care about is potential benefits that a proposal can do to further their ambitions. They might continue slamming down etherdelta, ETFs and the likes but surely they won't be able to shut bitcoin and other decentralized tokens/coins since they simply have no power over it. Etherdelta, also, was shut down because they are operating an unregistered exchange and not simply because the SEC wanted them gone.
SEC is not only caring about profits. I think what it values most of all is stability. They are pretty successful for a long time, so they believe they know how to continue being so. Taking the risks with new things, even if they are potentially profitable, it's just not their kind of thing. It does make sense to me that they don't want to deal with most of the top cryptocurrencies. They are regulating securities and the chaiman was right to say that many cryptos aren't, so it's none of their business. I think this kind of approach will kill them eventually, but for now they are trying to eliminate the obstacles. Is this Zachary Coburn guy a US citizen or not? My guess is that he is but I would be really interested to know if not. I wonder if the scenario would be any different for someone who is a US citizen or not, surely if they're not a US citizen or based in the US then the SEC has no remit?
I can't get an accurate information on his state of origin, but he had his early education in England. So there are chances he is English.
Doesn't the country where the establishment is registered count more than the origin of the founder?
Quote
According to SEC, Coburn consented to pay USD 300,000 in disgorgement, USD 13,000 in prejudgment interest, and also a penalty of USD 75,000, “without conceding or denying the discoveries.”
what the hell?!!!
I am not really familiar with EtherDelta, I have only heard of it and read a quick description but if it is truly a decentralized exchange then why is the developer paying SEC money? that doesn't make any sense!
The only answer that seems plausible to me is that the DEX is not really as decentralized as they make us believe. A DEX shouldn't have a central location, should not be pin-pointed as an entity, neither should it be under the supervision of one jurisdiction. That is what has been the attraction and security many of us found in the decentralization of money. That EtherDelta is cowed to 'settle' with SEC means it's nothing like the decentralized networks that we know. Perhaps some developers will make this clearer to me.
There's actually an argument to be made that it's not completely decentralized:
There are also issues like this:
https://www.reddit.com/r/ethereum/comments/6u5jz6/etherdelta_is_not_at_all_decentralized/
If that's the loophole the SEC was going for, then that's smart of them. We'll probably see if factors like this affect their decision making depending on whether or not they go after fully decentralized exchanges like Bisq.
Quote from: https://www.ccn.com/will-etherdelta-charges-lead-to-the-demise-of-decentralized-crypto-exchanges/
EtherDelta was considered a decentralized exchange ever since its launch in 2017, mainly because orders were processed on the Ethereum mainnet.
But, the platform was run by a single entity led by Coburn, and if there exists a single point of failure, then the exchange cannot be considered a decentralized platform. Rather, a more accurate description of EtherDelta is a non-custodial platform on which users have complete control over their private keys and funds.
But, the platform was run by a single entity led by Coburn, and if there exists a single point of failure, then the exchange cannot be considered a decentralized platform. Rather, a more accurate description of EtherDelta is a non-custodial platform on which users have complete control over their private keys and funds.
There are also issues like this:
https://www.reddit.com/r/ethereum/comments/6u5jz6/etherdelta_is_not_at_all_decentralized/
If that's the loophole the SEC was going for, then that's smart of them. We'll probably see if factors like this affect their decision making depending on whether or not they go after fully decentralized exchanges like Bisq.
Quote
According to SEC, Coburn consented to pay USD 300,000 in disgorgement, USD 13,000 in prejudgment interest, and also a penalty of USD 75,000, “without conceding or denying the discoveries.”
what the hell?!!!
I am not really familiar with EtherDelta, I have only heard of it and read a quick description but if it is truly a decentralized exchange then why is the developer paying SEC money? that doesn't make any sense!
Yeah that also struck me as very odd that they just paid a fine to get out of it.
Don't know if it is technically a fine, sounds more like a bribe to me honestly.
Wouldn't this set a very bad precedent for other decentralized exchanges though? We know that the US isn't afraid to go abroad to bring individuals to justice, I wonder if DEX founders in general are safe from this.
Is this Zachary Coburn guy a US citizen or not? My guess is that he is but I would be really interested to know if not. I wonder if the scenario would be any different for someone who is a US citizen or not, surely if they're not a US citizen or based in the US then the SEC has no remit?
Quote
According to SEC, Coburn consented to pay USD 300,000 in disgorgement, USD 13,000 in prejudgment interest, and also a penalty of USD 75,000, “without conceding or denying the discoveries.”
what the hell?!!!
I am not really familiar with EtherDelta, I have only heard of it and read a quick description but if it is truly a decentralized exchange then why is the developer paying SEC money? that doesn't make any sense!
Not surprising, but it's not like they can stop the growth of cryptocurrencies. There's no doubt that once the adoption phase kicks in and everyone starts using cryptos as a method of payment for goods and whatnot, the SEC will have to embrace cryptos one way or another, you can't stop the increasing interest surrounding cryptos. For now, it might look like they don't want anything to do with a decentralized system like Bitcoin where there are users who can control prices due to them having big chunks of btc, but sooner or later, the SEC will have to give up and start embracing cryptos.
If it is decentralized, no one should be in charge of it - not even one country or regulator. Why then did SEC move against EtherDelta? So if they had the reach and influence, they could move against decentralized tokens such as Bitcoin and ether too? https://cryptoinfowatch.com/sec-takes-action-against-etherdelta-in-a-first-move-against-dex/
The SEC hates everything "crypto",not anything decentralized.
How can decentralization be measured?Is bitcoin really decentralized,when btc mining and HODLing are concentrated inside a minority of rich people and companies?
Isn't that what they really do? Ensure that everything is under control and nobody gets 'frauded' in any way? Anyway going back, the SEC doesn't seem to care about the potential real-world applications of proposal being endorsed to them; all they care about is potential benefits that a proposal can do to further their ambitions. They might continue slamming down etherdelta, ETFs and the likes but surely they won't be able to shut bitcoin and other decentralized tokens/coins since they simply have no power over it. Etherdelta, also, was shut down because they are operating an unregistered exchange and not simply because the SEC wanted them gone.
If it is decentralized, no one should be in charge of it - not even one country or regulator. Why then did SEC move against EtherDelta? So if they had the reach and influence, they could move against decentralized tokens such as Bitcoin and ether too? https://cryptoinfowatch.com/sec-takes-action-against-etherdelta-in-a-first-move-against-dex/
Jump to: