Topic: Securities Exchange Commission can exempt anyone and anything from any rule (Read 1053 times)

yes, again with this

I read your argument on why bitcoin and contracts denominated in bitcoin couldn't be regulated, but the securities act of 1933 in and of itself doesn't even attempt to define money, in its definitions, and that test you mentioned is also old and irrelevant case law after pirateat40's case in federal court where he tried to use that argument basically word for word. welcome to 2013

What, again with this?



Certainly play pretend exchanges don't (gasp) have the funds or the wherewithal to approach this thing. That doesn't mean the actual problem is about money, which the actual exchange certainly has, along with the wherewithal to address the true problem.

Thats an existing Regulation D exemption, which is valid but reg d also allows for 35 non-accredited investors, and there are also exemptions for issuance sizes.

But there are two issues with this thinking, as it is limited:
1) you are limiting your thought to individual share companies, instead of thinking about the exchanges and other market participants which are encumbered by different SEC regulations which have nothing to do with raising funds
2) regulation D has nothing to do with the sections of both of those laws that I pointed to. the SEC can grant exemptions to ANY SECTION OR REGULATION related to those titles.

we can talk about more specific regulations later

The issue of granting exemptions doesn't really accomplish what the bitcoin investor community wants. For example, there's nothing wrong with privately raising funds from accredited investors and getting an SEC exemption. However, this doesn't allow for widespread public investment nor does it allow for speculative trading of these exempted securities.

its really the exchanges that are causing problems for everyone. no need to focus only on securities themselves.

btct.co had only 12 million usd in assets listed, even attempting to comply with the relevant securities issuing acts would be an impractical burden.

Should? Its more about the benefit of continuing business as usual, those exchanges still incur liability whether they are on the radar of a securities regulator or not. There will be a lot more liquidity if the United States was not a hostile environment for raising capital, and had some kind of federal gracing while cryptocurrency economies are building infrastructure (which requires raising capital)

Yes, but that really doesn't get at the crux of my question. Why should these securities be exempted from anything?

Both of those acts have over 2 dozen sections, the exemptions can be for certain parts, while the commission continues to regulate the space

for instance, the commission can exempt certain exchanges from needing to verify that they are issuing to americans or not, that would have avoided the clusterfuck with btct.co and bitfunder

or waiving the licensing requirements for certain persons trading with other people's capital

Bitcoin may be a novel technology, but what does that have to do with the issuance of securities denominated in bitcoin? What is so special or unique about these securities that warrant an exemption? On the contrary, wouldn't the SEC find the behavior of many of the companies issuing securities in this space to be a case study in the necessity of regulation?

bitcoin stock exchanges and bitcoin securities issuers are all running afoul of SEC regulations and the law. They don't attempt to comply because of perceived expense of legal counsel and the expense of regulator compliance

But is the problem bitcoin related or doesn't it effect profit-sharing crowdfunded operations in general?

The problem beeing almost 100 years old laws.

reserved

There are plenty of USA exemptions for the issuing size of the companies that have attempted to raise capital in cryptocurrencies. Regulation D has plenty of them.

Yes, the general libertarian-anarchocapitalist air of "government bad, regulation bad" has sliced your portfolios by 60% in the past two months, when instead of working with regulations, issuers and exchanges have used more energy trying to avoid the US regulators.

But even with Regulation D, and even unfinalized regulations on crowdfunding ... the SEC can exempt any person (natural or artificial), any security, or any class of security from any section of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

I've held that nascent technologies like bitcoin require exemptions to avoid the impossible burdens of raising capital or exchanging value in compliance with securities laws. I think it would be more fruitful for Americans and other traders, issuers and people planning to run exchanges with americans, to put energy into courting the SEC, not necessarily for a broad exemption from certain sections of the Securities Act of 1933 or Securities Exchange Act of 1934, but to make it clear to the SEC what the public interest is and how they can still protect consumers without burdening all bitcoin denominated securities issuers with impossible regulations.

see section 28 of the Securities Act of 1933
http://www.sec.gov/about/laws/sa33.pdf

see section 36 of the Securities Act of 1934
http://www.sec.gov/about/laws/sea34.pdf

despite the commissions incestuous ties with a protectionist financial system, the key parts of their exemptive powers come from realizing the public interest, and how it can continue its goal of "protecting consumers"