Sam Bankman-Fried was a hired hand or a useful idiot for a specific list of tasks. CZ is much smarter than Sam Bankman-Fried and doesn't want to be a useful idiot.
SEC will regulate all crypto projects and say who is bad and who is good.
Topic: SEC vs Binance - page 8. (Read 2507 times)
Not too suprising given the almost monopoly-standing of Binance right now, especially given the fact it is not a US company but (in a way) a Chinese one.
I think this will repeat with other unregulated exchanges that are going to rise to or near the top. Unless of course you play buddy-buddy with big corps, as FTX did. On a side note: funny how news about FTX almost seem to have seized to exist.
Back to topic. It's very clear that regulators are trying to stop unregulated (stable) coins, the question is: Will/can they ever succeed?
I think this will repeat with other unregulated exchanges that are going to rise to or near the top. Unless of course you play buddy-buddy with big corps, as FTX did. On a side note: funny how news about FTX almost seem to have seized to exist.
Back to topic. It's very clear that regulators are trying to stop unregulated (stable) coins, the question is: Will/can they ever succeed?
It is, binace is trying too monopoly before FTX collapse it want to acquired too. and binance is already acquired - Indonesian Crypto Trading Firm Tokocrypto (https://www.coindesk.com/business/2022/12/19/binance-finalizes-acquisition-of-indonesian-crypto-trading-firm-tokocrypto/)
I dont know when SEC stop regulating crypto I thinks is Imposible if they want to try regulated all of them
for now, CZ said that busd can be redeemed to original dollar. and I hope everything will settle again I don't hope another fud happen 
Fud is an inseparable part of the crypto ecosystem. I don't think we've ever seen any few months period without bigger or smaller fud going on.
As for Binance, it really starting to look like US regulators are set on not letting them grow too big.
But if they can handle moving away from Paxos smoothly, it would add to their credibility, and to Paxos' as well.
Not too suprising given the almost monopoly-standing of Binance right now, especially given the fact it is not a US company but (in a way) a Chinese one.
I think this will repeat with other unregulated exchanges that are going to rise to or near the top. Unless of course you play buddy-buddy with big corps, as FTX did. On a side note: funny how news about FTX almost seem to have seized to exist.
Back to topic. It's very clear that regulators are trying to stop unregulated (stable) coins, the question is: Will/can they ever succeed?
One of the possible scenarios:
The US government is forcing all crypto exchanges to buy US bonds with customer dollars.
As soon as crypto exchanges have a huge portfolio of bonds, a huge FUD is created in the market.
The US government is buying back its bonds at a huge discount, the price of cryptocurrencies is falling. Stablecoins are losing their peg to the dollar.
The US government is forcing all crypto exchanges to buy US bonds with customer dollars.
As soon as crypto exchanges have a huge portfolio of bonds, a huge FUD is created in the market.
The US government is buying back its bonds at a huge discount, the price of cryptocurrencies is falling. Stablecoins are losing their peg to the dollar.
They will keep spreading fud until they are heavily invested like everyone else does
for now, CZ said that busd can be redeemed to original dollar. and I hope everything will settle again I don't hope another fud happen
Fud is an inseparable part of the crypto ecosystem. I don't think we've ever seen any few months period without bigger or smaller fud going on.
As for Binance, it really starting to look like US regulators are set on not letting them grow too big.
But if they can handle moving away from Paxos smoothly, it would add to their credibility, and to Paxos' as well.
If they don't store the gold, they have to pay to those storing and guarding it.
And the profit? May come from various operational fees they take,
And the profit? May come from various operational fees they take,
Sure but the costs of them paying for storage are much lower than if they were to store it themselves.
And yup, looks like they're charging some small fees on each on-chain transaction. From their whitepaper:
For transactions that occur on-chain (transferred via Ethereum), there is a low Paxos transaction fee (0.02%) as well
as the usual Ethereum gas fees (typically a few cents).
as the usual Ethereum gas fees (typically a few cents).
(if they want to properly back a stable coin with actual gold then its storage needs to be paid).
Which is why it's the dumbest idea to make a gold stablecoin, or any precious metal stablecoin for that matter.
The minters are not even guaranteed to have liquidity in the first place, and usually they don't anyway. It's not like anyone's going to go back to Bretton Woods agreement any time soon.Well, there are people fond of gold, people who want to use gold-equivalent coins. Many see it as a store of value, some even more than bitcoin. I won't debate whether they're right or wrong.
At some point in the past I was advertising one such stable coin and... they were charging their users for that storage (!), it was part of the business model.
But, yes, we're on the same page: the logistics of reimbursing in case such a coin/business collapses may be pretty complicated (as you said, liquidity...)
Gold-backed tokens have been around for a while, i.e. Pax Gold: https://paxos.com/paxgold/
They don't have to set up any storage themselves, but would rather use trustworthy, reputable, and much cheaper 3rd parties like Swiss banks, or, in the case of Pax Gold - LBMA (London-based precious metals authority).
Not sure how they generate a profit on that though, probably it's just initial issuance and redemption fees, so much less attractive than fiat-based stablecoins, where most of the profit would be generated from interest on clients' deposits.
They don't have to set up any storage themselves, but would rather use trustworthy, reputable, and much cheaper 3rd parties like Swiss banks, or, in the case of Pax Gold - LBMA (London-based precious metals authority).
Not sure how they generate a profit on that though, probably it's just initial issuance and redemption fees, so much less attractive than fiat-based stablecoins, where most of the profit would be generated from interest on clients' deposits.
If they don't store the gold, they have to pay to those storing and guarding it.
And the profit? May come from various operational fees they take, may come (sooner or later) from playing with fractional reserve, .. I've never heard of anybody who's issuing money to be (or stay) poor
Not 100% sure, but usually there would be some option to cash in bonds before they mature with some small penalty. Or, most likely, US treasuries can be just traded on the open market. Some of the RRPs have maturity dates as late as 2049, there's no way they would hard-lock any funds for that long without an option to terminate early.
So Paxos should be able to service any withdrawal/conversion requests in a relatively short time if it comes to that.
So Paxos should be able to service any withdrawal/conversion requests in a relatively short time if it comes to that.
Agree us treasuries cant be traded early but the price might fluctuate. and yeah I also believe that they might think about that too. for now, CZ said that busd can be redeemed to original dollar. and I hope everything will settle again I don't hope another fud happen
... most of the money was in the form of US Treasury Bills Well if this true I think the money are safe but they cant redeem all of it in one time, right?
Not 100% sure, but usually there would be some option to cash in bonds before they mature with some small penalty. Or, most likely, US treasuries can be just traded on the open market. Some of the RRPs have maturity dates as late as 2049, there's no way they would hard-lock any funds for that long without an option to terminate early.
So Paxos should be able to service any withdrawal/conversion requests in a relatively short time if it comes to that.
A rather strange situation. Allegedly the SEC has labeled it as security and is suing Paxos, which, if true, was likely the reason behind NYDFS ordering them to cease issuing new tokens.
https://twitter.com/milesdeutscher/status/1624953792872718336
That's bizarre, if anything, BNB would fall much closer to being security than BUSD.
https://twitter.com/milesdeutscher/status/1624953792872718336
That's bizarre, if anything, BNB would fall much closer to being security than BUSD.
I agree with this one, I mean this was basically a US Dollar not an investment. BNB and other coin like XRP is much closer. SEC seems hate very much about crypto industry since its very hard to regulate all of them.
And funds are SAFU!
!
!This is CZ biggest mantra that funds are safu I just opened Paxos Report and most of the money was in the form of US Treasury Bills Well if this true I think the money are safe but they cant redeem all of it in one time, right? [Report : https://paxos.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/BUSD-Daily-Stablecoin-Reporting-as-of-2.16.2023-1.pdf]
And Lastly, in my opinion if BUSD/Paxos was won maybe SEC would stop chasing other stablecoin but if they lose they will come to other stablecoin and we might see little bit shaking in the market.
Which is why it's the dumbest idea to make a gold stablecoin, or any precious metal stablecoin for that matter. The minters are not even guaranteed to have liquidity in the first place, and usually they don't anyway. It's not like anyone's going to go back to Bretton Woods agreement any time soon.
The minters are not even guaranteed to have liquidity in the first place, and usually they don't anyway. It's not like anyone's going to go back to Bretton Woods agreement any time soon.Gold-backed tokens have been around for a while, i.e. Pax Gold: https://paxos.com/paxgold/
They don't have to set up any storage themselves, but would rather use trustworthy, reputable, and much cheaper 3rd parties like Swiss banks, or, in the case of Pax Gold - LBMA (London-based precious metals authority).
Not sure how they generate a profit on that though, probably it's just initial issuance and redemption fees, so much less attractive than fiat-based stablecoins, where most of the profit would be generated from interest on clients' deposits.
I don't expect the SEC to have much impact on Binance. Binance could easily move to the right jurisdiction and issue a new stablecoin with ratio 1:1 to busd. Or take other steps. there are games just behind the scenes right now
So you don't understand what's going on. I think the CEC and other organizations in the US have a lot of leverage to force Binance not to issue new stablecoins. Stablecoins are not needed because governments want to force citizens to use CBDC. 
(if they want to properly back a stable coin with actual gold then its storage needs to be paid).
Which is why it's the dumbest idea to make a gold stablecoin, or any precious metal stablecoin for that matter.
The minters are not even guaranteed to have liquidity in the first place, and usually they don't anyway. It's not like anyone's going to go back to Bretton Woods agreement any time soon. I don't expect the SEC to have much impact on Binance. Binance could easily move to the right jurisdiction and issue a new stablecoin with ratio 1:1 to busd. Or take other steps. there are games just behind the scenes right now
Binance already operates in multiple jurisdictions, so it's not like they would have to move. But potentially losing access to the entire US crypto market would be a huge blow.
Regarding BUSD, I think they'd have to ditch Paxos and find a new issuer. As things are now, Paxos could still operate with already issued BUSD tokens, but not being able to issue any new ones, means stifling the growth of that market for Binance. And I don't imagine it would be practical to have two different issuers/operators of the same token.
But, at the end of the day, they could also just ditch BUSD altogether and replace it with some other existing stablecoin that SEC/NYDFS don't (yet) have a problem with.
I don't expect the SEC to have much impact on Binance. Binance could easily move to the right jurisdiction and issue a new stablecoin with ratio 1:1 to busd. Or take other steps. there are games just behind the scenes right now
Does anyone know why SEC involve in blockchain? Why shouldn't the US open a new organization to work on regulated btc instead? Is it good to apply the rule from the stock market to blockchain?
They will peg to the Euro, then remember they have no licenses to operate there, then to the yen, remembering how they fled Japan, for a while to the yuan till he realizes that the Jack Ma story is not that funny, a bit with the Russian ruble till he fails to fall from a window and then maybe finally both he and the others stop using those so-called stable coins and just deals as it was supposed to be, fiat vs BTC, and not IOU notes vs script generated coins.
Just an idea, but seems pretty appealing, to me at least.
Very attractive to me too, this is the idea that inspired the invention of bitcoin I think.Just an idea, but seems pretty appealing, to me at least.
Linking cryptocurrencies to any other stablecoin or fiat will not solve the problem, but rather will divert the problem to another direction and create a new one.
The only solution is to disengage from the dollar, fiat as a whole, or any stable coin, and link to a decentralized coin that is not controlled by anyone and is not subject to any party, state, or economy, as if I am talking about Bitcoin??!!!
The idea seems very difficult at the moment, but I am confident that it will be realized in the future.
The SEC is not a hypocrite.
Actually I think that these moves are not related to protecting American citizen, nor American businesses. I think that it's meant to pave the way for the upcoming CBDC. And that's, sorry, overly hypocrite.
Exactly my thoughts on the entire matter. They just want to get rid of competition before unleashing the horror of their dictatorial digital currency. What they unfortunately have no realized is how futile their attempts will be since we already have Bitcoin. And they will not be able to destroy Bitcoin or its value. Anybody with an IQ higher than room temperature knows this and will not give up their Bitcoin over some pseudo-crypto that the government quickly put together out of panic because their current monetary system is being effectively attacked by Bitcoin and even altcoins...
Actually I think that these moves are not related to protecting American citizen, nor American businesses. I think that it's meant to pave the way for the upcoming CBDC. And that's, sorry, overly hypocrite.
Very old wisdom: "What is good for a citizen is bad for the state and vice versa". A friend who was in Davos said that the CBDC trend is a priority and by 2026 CBDC will be in Europe, the USA, Russia, Japan and other countries. This is just the beginning. And all the crypto exchanges that remain on the market will be banks. Regulation will be the same as banks, so only the largest will survive.
That's correct. It's an unfortunate reality we should not deny.
While the migration to bitcoin standard would have been much more beneficial for the citizen, ... that old wisdom you posted tells the story.
So we'll get CBDCs. However, as you said, the largest, the "fittest" will survive. And we know that the current stable coins are not so fit and, excepting Tether, they're not large either. So.. I don't see why they're bashing them already... unless they really want to implement into CBDCs all the bad features we're afraid of and we're talking about every time CBDCs come into discussion (full control of the state on people's money, from history of transactions to seizing the funds from inside people's wallets). And then no sane individual would touch those. Something doesn't seem to add up...
[...]
That's bizarre, if anything, BNB would fall much closer to being security than BUSD.
All this fits in into operation Chokepoint 2.0 theory. Or maybe it's just a result of a geopolitic tensions between US and China, as Binance is rumoured to have quiet support of the Chinese governmet.
That's bizarre, if anything, BNB would fall much closer to being security than BUSD.
All this fits in into operation Chokepoint 2.0 theory. Or maybe it's just a result of a geopolitic tensions between US and China, as Binance is rumoured to have quiet support of the Chinese governmet.
Exactly. But it's not about logic, rather it's about the message and effect it may have on similar stable coins.
It's a scary development, but of course similar moves from SEC were to be expected for quite a while now. I'd guess this is just the beginning of a huge crackdown on crypto with a shift towards official, centralized government-friendly organizations ruling over stable-shitcoins.
Jump to: