https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-05-10/kraken-battles-sec-over-investment-concept-wording-in-filing
Kraken Battles SEC Over ‘Investment Concept’ Wording in Filing
"The exchange is responding to the SEC’s reply in April
The agency sued Kraken in November for not registering
The war of words between Kraken and the US Securities and Exchange Commission continued with a new filing by the crypto exchange that argues the agency’s case isn’t even worded correctly.
Kraken filed a reply Thursday to the SEC’s April letter on the company’s motion to dismiss the case, alleging that the agency failed to identify “any investment contracts that were (or could be) traded, brokered or settled on Kraken.” The filing states that the SEC used the terms investment “concept” and “ecosystem” instead of “investment contract” and “enterprise” several times in its argument."
Topic: SEC vs Kraken,Coinbase and Justin Sun (Read 479 times)
https://www.dlnews.com/articles/regulation/sec-says-justin-sun-spent-time-in-us-while-touting-tokens/
SEC says jurisdiction over Justin Sun justified by Tron founder’s 380 days in US
"Justin Sun spent time in the US while promoting tokens, SEC says in new court documents.
The regulator has filed more information in its lawsuit against Sun.
This after Sun’s team argued that the SEC was overstepping its authority in suing the Tron founder."
SEC says jurisdiction over Justin Sun justified by Tron founder’s 380 days in US
"Justin Sun spent time in the US while promoting tokens, SEC says in new court documents.
The regulator has filed more information in its lawsuit against Sun.
This after Sun’s team argued that the SEC was overstepping its authority in suing the Tron founder."
The United States securities regulator is holding off from ratifying the definition of the term “digital assets” in rules that govern reporting disclosures for hedge and private equity funds, despite proposing to do so some nine months ago.
On May 3 the Securities and Exchange Commission published amendments to Form PF — a form that SEC-registered funds complete to disclose basic information about their fund so the regulator can assess potential “systemic risks.”
The SEC originally included a digital assets definition in an August 2022 proposal for the changes. If it went into effect, it would have been the first time the SEC defined “digital assets.”
https://cointelegraph.com/news/sec-steps-back-from-defining-digital-assets-in-new-hedge-fund-rules
It doesn't surprise me tho that the SEC would go any length to snuff crypto activities. Since January, it has been jumping from one legal action against crypto exchanges to another and has now served Coinbase a Wells notice. On May 3 the Securities and Exchange Commission published amendments to Form PF — a form that SEC-registered funds complete to disclose basic information about their fund so the regulator can assess potential “systemic risks.”
The SEC originally included a digital assets definition in an August 2022 proposal for the changes. If it went into effect, it would have been the first time the SEC defined “digital assets.”
https://cointelegraph.com/news/sec-steps-back-from-defining-digital-assets-in-new-hedge-fund-rules
And that's where the issues has arises in my opinion, SEC doesn't have a clear cut definitions, and they they are like going after crypto exchanges that put damage on the US itself. Coinbase for example might leave and go somewhere else wherein regulations or at least the government as not hard on them.
So far, they seem to be mute as regards the proper definition of regulatory clarity and at present, even the Chamber of Commerce supports the lawsuit filed by Coinbase demanding an answer from the SEC on their take on crypto regulation since most of their members are companies subject to US securities law.
It will really hurt SEC more than others if they continue to be mute on regulations. To the point that they are being mock in public because it's seems that their leaders doesn't know a thing or two about crypto.
The United States securities regulator is holding off from ratifying the definition of the term “digital assets” in rules that govern reporting disclosures for hedge and private equity funds, despite proposing to do so some nine months ago.
On May 3 the Securities and Exchange Commission published amendments to Form PF — a form that SEC-registered funds complete to disclose basic information about their fund so the regulator can assess potential “systemic risks.”
The SEC originally included a digital assets definition in an August 2022 proposal for the changes. If it went into effect, it would have been the first time the SEC defined “digital assets.”
https://cointelegraph.com/news/sec-steps-back-from-defining-digital-assets-in-new-hedge-fund-rules
It doesn't surprise me tho that the SEC would go any length to snuff crypto activities. Since January, it has been jumping from one legal action against crypto exchanges to another and has now served Coinbase a Wells notice. On May 3 the Securities and Exchange Commission published amendments to Form PF — a form that SEC-registered funds complete to disclose basic information about their fund so the regulator can assess potential “systemic risks.”
The SEC originally included a digital assets definition in an August 2022 proposal for the changes. If it went into effect, it would have been the first time the SEC defined “digital assets.”
https://cointelegraph.com/news/sec-steps-back-from-defining-digital-assets-in-new-hedge-fund-rules
So far, they seem to be mute as regards the proper definition of regulatory clarity and at present, even the Chamber of Commerce supports the lawsuit filed by Coinbase demanding an answer from the SEC on their take on crypto regulation since most of their members are companies subject to US securities law.
The United States securities regulator is holding off from ratifying the definition of the term “digital assets” in rules that govern reporting disclosures for hedge and private equity funds, despite proposing to do so some nine months ago.
On May 3 the Securities and Exchange Commission published amendments to Form PF — a form that SEC-registered funds complete to disclose basic information about their fund so the regulator can assess potential “systemic risks.”
The SEC originally included a digital assets definition in an August 2022 proposal for the changes. If it went into effect, it would have been the first time the SEC defined “digital assets.”
https://cointelegraph.com/news/sec-steps-back-from-defining-digital-assets-in-new-hedge-fund-rules
On May 3 the Securities and Exchange Commission published amendments to Form PF — a form that SEC-registered funds complete to disclose basic information about their fund so the regulator can assess potential “systemic risks.”
The SEC originally included a digital assets definition in an August 2022 proposal for the changes. If it went into effect, it would have been the first time the SEC defined “digital assets.”
https://cointelegraph.com/news/sec-steps-back-from-defining-digital-assets-in-new-hedge-fund-rules
I don't have a true answer to your question.
I only have a theory. After Vitalik's project was supported by very powerful financial banking structures, the project and the team will have no problems. It is impossible to rise to such heights without patrons.
This year we will see a lot of regulation and litigation against crypto projects. If ethereum has serious problems, then my theory is wrong.
I only have a theory. After Vitalik's project was supported by very powerful financial banking structures, the project and the team will have no problems. It is impossible to rise to such heights without patrons.
This year we will see a lot of regulation and litigation against crypto projects. If ethereum has serious problems, then my theory is wrong.
This is the major secret behind most successful businesses and powerful men...
There is no connection that will let them experience any form of attack from any external body.
It's good to know.. I must say this thread have updated me either few things which I have few understanding on.
I don't have a true answer to your question.
I only have a theory. After Vitalik's project was supported by very powerful financial banking structures, the project and the team will have no problems. It is impossible to rise to such heights without patrons.
This year we will see a lot of regulation and litigation against crypto projects. If ethereum has serious problems, then my theory is wrong.
I only have a theory. After Vitalik's project was supported by very powerful financial banking structures, the project and the team will have no problems. It is impossible to rise to such heights without patrons.
This year we will see a lot of regulation and litigation against crypto projects. If ethereum has serious problems, then my theory is wrong.
This is the major secret behind most successful businesses and powerful men...
There is no connection that will let them experience any form of attack from any external body.
It's good to know.. I must say this thread have updated me either few things which I have few understanding on.
SEC works only where they are allowed to.
Ethereum had an ICO, Ethereum has staking. This is project number 2, which can become number 1, but no one notices it, because it cannot be noticed
No one noticed it.Ethereum had an ICO, Ethereum has staking. This is project number 2, which can become number 1, but no one notices it, because it cannot be noticed
It can't be noticed how?
Does ETH have some kind of immunity?
Just asking out of curiosity because of the truth that with all that is happening around them, there has not been a single piece of news regarding an attempt to invite or sue the Eth CEO, just as the others are facing the SEC in different ways.
I only have a theory. After Vitalik's project was supported by very powerful financial banking structures, the project and the team will have no problems. It is impossible to rise to such heights without patrons.
This year we will see a lot of regulation and litigation against crypto projects. If ethereum has serious problems, then my theory is wrong.
SEC works only where they are allowed to.
Ethereum had an ICO, Ethereum has staking. This is project number 2, which can become number 1, but no one notices it, because it cannot be noticed
No one noticed it.Ethereum had an ICO, Ethereum has staking. This is project number 2, which can become number 1, but no one notices it, because it cannot be noticed
It can't be noticed how?
Does ETH have some kind of immunity?
Just asking out of curiosity because of the truth that with all that is happening around them, there has not been a single piece of news regarding an attempt to invite or sue the Eth CEO, just as the others are facing the SEC in different ways.
SEC is going around with any project who do an ICO or similar thing in the past, especially those that don't limit US participants.
SEC works only where they are allowed to.Ethereum had an ICO, Ethereum has staking. This is project number 2, which can become number 1, but no one notices it, because it cannot be noticed.
Quote
CFTC Chief Behnam Again Calls ETH a Commodity
____This is a summary of what I think about SEC.
ICO is not viable now, because of the high risks, no one will invest
Does not revealing your identity as a project owner make the project less attractive to investment, which might in turn lead to low market capitalization?
Ryoshi is the only name I know about the Shitcoin token Shiba Inu but the coin token have a huge number of in trading volume about $200M+ daily trading volume.
I think Shiba Inu is an outlier, to be honest. They have the hype around them when they release it, around when Doge is pumping if I'm not wrong, and people are more than happy to spend their cash to pump low market cap animal tokens. The rest of the anonymous projects that I know of do have low market cap. However, I do believe the key reason is that the things that they build are not really interesting for the masses.Ryoshi is the only name I know about the Shit
As far as I can tell, SEC is going around with any project who do an ICO or similar thing in the past, especially those that don't limit US participants. They also go for staking services and their derivatives. If there is a new anonymous project that doesn't center around them and is interesting for customers, I believe they might be successful. Whether there will be such projects is another question though, considering how the demand for ICOs is low at the moment.
Chipmixer was recently closed, and these people probably understood what security and privacy are.
Do you really think this shitcoin will be the solution to the problem?
https://www.coingecko.com/en/coins/ryoshi-token#markets
Such coins will not interest the SEC, because it will close much earlier
Did you know that this is a token on the centralized binance blockchain? 
Lol 😂
I know it's a token not a coin my mistake.
I really don't think it will be the solution to the problem but i was just given an instance over the privacy protection of project owners and the huge volume over their token.
The Sec are highly after those whose existence is a trait to their fiat. I assume that's why they are going after the big names. Which it's just a matter of time before they will eventually believe that their is really nothing more for them to do unless to cause fuds
$44 billion has been printed in the Tron ecosystem, and the SEC is after Justin Sun. Most of these coins are circulating on the Kraken and Binance exchanges. Binance was banned from buying Voyager assets. This is only 1 billion, but there is a very serious game going on, which can turn into sad consequences for the crypto market.
Chipmixer was recently closed, and these people probably understood what security and privacy are.
Do you really think this shitcoin will be the solution to the problem?
https://www.coingecko.com/en/coins/ryoshi-token#markets
Such coins will not interest the SEC, because it will close much earlier
Did you know that this is a token on the centralized binance blockchain? Lol 😂
I know it's a token not a coin my mistake.
I really don't think it will be the solution to the problem but i was just given an instance over the privacy protection of project owners and the huge volume over their token.
The Sec are highly after those whose existence is a trait to their fiat. I assume that's why they are going after the big names. Which it's just a matter of time before they will eventually believe that their is really nothing more for them to do unless to cause fuds
This is not possible in today's world. You can create a project for crypto-enthusiasts and exchange your candy wrappers with each other using anonymity, but the capitalization of such a project will be minimal and the SEC will not be interested in it.
Does not revealing your identity as a project owner make the project less attractive to investment, which might in turn lead to low market capitalization? Ryoshi is the only name I know about the Shit coin Shiba Inu but the coin have a huge number of in trading volume about $200M+ daily trading volume.
I know it's hard to trust a project whose team members are anonymous, but at the same time, to be on the safe side from the attack of the Sec, privacy is the key.
Chipmixer was recently closed, and these people probably understood what security and privacy are.
Do you really think this shitcoin will be the solution to the problem?
https://www.coingecko.com/en/coins/ryoshi-token#markets
Such coins will not interest the SEC, because it will close much earlier
Did you know that this is a token on the centralized binance blockchain? This is not possible in today's world. You can create a project for crypto-enthusiasts and exchange your candy wrappers with each other using anonymity, but the capitalization of such a project will be minimal and the SEC will not be interested in it.
Does not revealing your identity as a project owner make the project less attractive to investment, which might in turn lead to low market capitalization? Ryoshi is the only name I know about the Shit
I know it's hard to trust a project whose team members are anonymous, but at the same time, to be on the safe side from the attack of the Sec, privacy is the key.
Any project is at risk. If the SEC directs its sanctions against him, then the project will have problems. Large projects will survive, small and medium ones may be closed.
That's why it's just better to be anonymous with a completely decentralized system. No one lives from any government; there is no identity of the real project owner. That way, even when they want to target any project, they won't know to whom to direct their sanction and how.
____
If we talk about the lawsuits of the SEC, then their policy is very selective. All large companies will pay fines because they either sold tokens or there was staking or other violations. Now SEC can influence the price of any major cryptocurrency and create many problems for the project.
https://twitter.com/gurgavin/status/1638656154250412033
"JUST YESTERDAY COINBASE CEO REPORTED SELLING MILLIONS IN COINBASE $COIN SHARES ( PART OF HIS 10B5-1)"
"JUST YESTERDAY COINBASE CEO REPORTED SELLING MILLIONS IN COINBASE $COIN SHARES ( PART OF HIS 10B5-1)"
So much for their "dream team" legal defense.
Normally, people would be surprised and disgusted by such pig-selling occurring, but in this case, this action of his is quite stupefying because it means that they think that they don't have a fighting chance to win this lawsuit. Otherwise, he wouldn't have sold his shares, now would he?
They were making a big splash about their attorneys taking on the SEC, and now this.
Did you read the filing?
https://investor.coinbase.com/financials/sec-filings/default.aspx
https://d3ka4b6b7wffw2.cloudfront.net/0001679788/100117351171/7bcbdfd3-493d-4bc6-8b71-da2868ae6820.pdf
Was more of a shifting around of stock then out and out sale of stock.
Look at the ones labeled (A) for acquired vs (D) for disposed of.
Sadly there is a lot of things that things that are somewhat not that bad in the corporate world that still have to be reported since it is a public company.
It's the nature of what it is.
As for the lawsuits. I see Coinbase coming out *relatively* unhurt and Kraken and Justin getting heavy fines and such. If not outright bans.
Just my opinion, no legal or financial basis to back that up. I have no real funds in any of them.
-Dave
https://twitter.com/gurgavin/status/1638656154250412033
"JUST YESTERDAY COINBASE CEO REPORTED SELLING MILLIONS IN COINBASE $COIN SHARES ( PART OF HIS 10B5-1)"
"JUST YESTERDAY COINBASE CEO REPORTED SELLING MILLIONS IN COINBASE $COIN SHARES ( PART OF HIS 10B5-1)"
So much for their "dream team" legal defense.
Normally, people would be surprised and disgusted by such pig-selling occurring, but in this case, this action of his is quite stupefying because it means that they think that they don't have a fighting chance to win this lawsuit. Otherwise, he wouldn't have sold his shares, now would he?
They were making a big splash about their attorneys taking on the SEC, and now this.
Any project is at risk. If the SEC directs its sanctions against him, then the project will have problems. Large projects will survive, small and medium ones may be closed.
That's why it's just better to be anonymous with a completely decentralized system. No one lives from any government; there is no identity of the real project owner. That way, even when they want to target any project, they won't know to whom to direct their sanction and how.
According to Justin Sun's tweets, he is ready to collaborate with the US government, which means he will accept every charge and pay the fine if necessary.
This amuses me a lot. As soon as the SEC sends a Wells notice to a company or an influential businessman, the company says: blah blah blah.. we are so happy to cooperate````how much to pay? 
This is a very good and fast way to get a lot of money in the form of fines. Vitulik Buterin has not yet received a Wells notice.
Any project is at risk. If the SEC directs its sanctions against him, then the project will have problems. Large projects will survive, small and medium ones may be closed.
Jump to: