pull down to refresh
10 sats \ 7 replies \ @Cje95 7 Oct 2024 \ parent \ on: Pro-Crypto Robinhood Exec in Running to Lead SEC If Trump Wins Election news
Did you happen to see this guy testify in front of the House Financial Services Committee a few weeks ago? I feel like it might change your opinion of him with how he handled and explained everything going on in the space and with SEC correspondence
No, I am sure he is fine litigator and lobbyist but Robinhood is an absolute trash company that preys on uneducated investors so anyone who would choose to work there, especially to try to protect them from legal recourse, is of questionable morals in my opinion.
I think you have a conflict of interest because you really want to see crypto get a pass.
I am all for abolishing the SEC if that's what people want to do but I am not for rules for thee but not for me which is precisely what the crypto industry is lobbying for.
reply
He isn’t a lobbyist and I’m not sure why people think he is. Working for a company doesn’t make you a lobbyist lol.
Conflict of interest is a bold term. I have a preference I have my thoughts and understanding of the law but that doesn’t mean it’s a conflict of interest. Using your view everyone this election who is concerned about the economy, the second leading issue of concern, has a conflict of interest which just isn’t true.
I’ve never advocated for crypto getting a pass I am very pro crypto legislation which is entirely a separate matter. Stating the fact of the matter that the SEC is failing to do what it has said it will with paperwork from the SEC submitted as evidence in these trials saying so isn’t giving crypto a pass.
The major lobbyists are advocating for clear rules of the road. Since that does not exist and more importantly since Chevron has been overturned the SEC needs legislation passed and to think they don’t means you miss the huge Chevron issue. Crypto power was never delegated by Congress and if the SEC and Congress don’t get it together a thermonuclear bomb could be thrown into the SEC leveraging this clear jurisdictional issue.
reply
Clear rules of the road is such BS. There are clear rules within the existing howey test framework. Everything except bitcoin is a security under that framework. The crypto industry can not like it and lobby congress to change the laws. I am fine with that. If congress wants to pass a law with an updated framework for defining what a security is that includes digital assets great but this idea that crypto has been trying to play by the rules but there are no clear rules is absolute garbage.
They could have all registered and followed the rules but instead said "let's just ignore the existing rules, claim ignorance and lack of clarity and do whatever the hell we want and the SEC can try to sue 10,000 of us and in the meantime we will all get rich".
It's a sickening, exploitative, disgusting industry that adds no value to humanity. You seem like a logical, and good person, I have no idea why you are so adamant on defending some of the biggest scammers and fraudsters in human history.
reply
Chevron being overturned though has in theory, you would have to sue to find out, the idea that it qualifies under Howey. Howey was created way back before there was even a remote dream of things like the internet. Since Congress must give the power to Agencies and Departments there is a clear issue here because Congress never did. At the heart of the matter now for ANY of this is Chevron because that has thrown a hand grenade into almost all legislation since '84.
Again I am saying this is a Congressional issue legislation has to be passed because there is a huge gaping hole here.
On a minor side note with an example....
Also, it should be noted that for the first time we have transparent submitted evidence on behalf of Robinhood ( who I know you don't like why they provided all the evidence to the House Financial Services Committee) that after 2 years of trying to get registered it was SEC Chairman Genslers office who told Robinhood to stop and that "there was no path forward". This isn't productive at all and since the SEC literally regulates Robinhood since it is on the stock market shows that there is an issue. If it is so easy and these companies just have to register like you say and one tries for 2 years before being turned down then how at the same time are they accepting their (Robinhood's) own accounting and legality in general. It doesn't make any since the two things contradict each other.
reply
I am not trying to say Gensler good, SEC good, crypto bad. I am just trying to say that Gensler and the SEC being bad actors doesn't even come close to the level of bad acting in crypto.
You are absolutely correct regarding Chevron being overturned that it completely changes things but all these issues with crypto companies and projects were long before Chevron was overturned so they can't say well we were basing on courts deciding.
Congress should have fixed this issue years ago with new securities laws. Complain all you want about Howey (that's fair) but it's what's on the books.
Chances are when new securities laws do come the next wave of crypto projects will break them anyways and claim lack of "clarity". That's what bad actors do. They don't seek to follow the rules. They seek to steal as much as possible without getting punished for it.
reply
hese issues with crypto companies and projects were long before Chevron was overturned so they can't say well we were basing on courts deciding.
If the SEC or anyone brings a case now it will fall under the current judicial understanding? Its like if you went to jail for even the smallest amount of pot and were sent to jail for 20 years and then the next month they overturned the ban on pot you still committed the crime.
The courts don't go back and say well you did this years ago and we though X was the standard so X applies its whatever the current understanding is. This is why I say it is a huge hole because I mean it is Chevron has now changed how these types of things will be brought before the courts.