Public
- Public
- Network
- Groups
- Featured
- Popular
- People

Conversation

Notices

Embed this notice
Molly White (molly0xfff@hachyderm.io)'s status on Saturday, 11-Jan-2025 06:06:35 JST Molly White

Coinbase is being allowed interlocutory appeal in their lawsuit from the SEC, which could establish meaningful precedent if the Second Circuit agrees to hear it.
#crypto #cryptocurrency
In conversation about 3 months ago from hachyderm.io permalink
Attachments
1. Coinbase is being allowed to appeal to the Second Circuit the March 2024 order by New York Judge Katherine Polk Failla that the SEC has plausibly argued that some transactions met the definition of investment contracts, and thus fell under their purview [I54]. Known as an “interlocutory appeal”, this request to appeal was made while the case still remains in its early stages, and such requests are somewhat rarely granted. However, Failla wrote, “Although the Court does not appreciate, and will not co-sign, Coinbase’s efforts to cast aspersions on the SEC’s approach to crypto-assets, the fact remains that these conflicting decisions on an important legal issue necessitate the Second Circuit’s guidance.” She also noted opinions in other cases in the district involving Terraform Labs and Ripple, where judges may have issued conflicting rulings. She continued, “The Court agrees with Coinbase that ‘[t]he conflict between Ripple on the one hand and Terraform and the [March 2024 Coinbase] Order on the other is symptomatic of the more fundamental difficulty of applying Howey to crypto transactions.’” Failla has stayed the rest of the case pending either a decision from the Second Circuit to deny the request for appeal, or a decision on the appeal itself.14 If the Second Circuit takes the case, it could be very meaningful for the crypto world, which has been battling the SEC over the “securities” determination for years now. However, the industry has put significant efforts towards
  https://media.hachyderm.io/media_attachments/files/113/806/086/399/635/227/original/8c19cba2e7ee50e0.png
- Embed this notice
  Molly White (molly0xfff@hachyderm.io)'s status on Saturday, 11-Jan-2025 06:07:58 JST Molly White
  in reply to
  
  The CFPB is seeking comment on a proposed interpretive rule that would clarify that cryptocurrencies and some in-game video game currencies fall under the EFTA, which could require crypto and video game companies to reimburse scam victims.
  #crypto #cryptocurrency
  In conversation about 3 months ago permalink
  Attachments
  1. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has proposed a new interpretive rule that would require both cryptocurrency platforms and video game companies to reimburse customers for stolen digital assets under the Electronic Fund Transfer Act (EFTA). This is a marked departure from the current sad state of affairs, where crypto platforms that receive complaints from customers whose accounts were emptied typically shrug and say “guess you shouldn’t have fallen for a scam”, then refer them to local law enforcement who in turn shrug and say “we can’t trace stolen crypto”. It’s also a big difference for some video game companies, whose responses to stolen in-game funds vary dramatically based on the game company and, seemingly, the mood of whichever customer support representative you are lucky or unlucky enough to reach on any given day. The CFPB is not alone in their interpretation of the EFTA. A federal judge interpreted the law the same way in a decision in the Southern District of New York, stemming from a class action lawsuit that was filed after flawed implementation of multi-factor authentication by the Uphold cryptocurrency exchange contributed to multiple customers losing tens of thousands of dollars in assets. Although Uphold never wound up paying much in damages, the opinion in the case included that “personal asset accounts that are investment accounts like ... the cryptocurrency accounts at issue here, are accounts covered by the EFTA”, and noted that the EFTA does n
    https://media.hachyderm.io/media_attachments/files/113/806/096/166/711/609/original/94ab9af42de04338.png
  2. Untitled attachment
    https://media.hachyderm.io/media_attachments/files/113/806/096/174/026/380/original/721eafc9ed856f0d.png
- Embed this notice
  Molly White (molly0xfff@hachyderm.io)'s status on Saturday, 11-Jan-2025 06:09:30 JST Molly White
  in reply to
  
  Having failed to obtain proof of "Operation Chokepoint 2.0" with their FOIA requests, Coinbase is going with the second best option: loudly proclaiming that they have such proof, and hoping no one will bother to dig through the rather dry emails between banks and banking regulators. Fortunately, I have several years of practice in digging through dry documents crypto industry figures hope no one will actually read.
  #crypto #cryptocurrency
  In conversation about 3 months ago permalink
  Attachments
  1. The crypto industry has continued to doggedly pursue proof of their enormously dubious claims that the FDIC and other financial regulators have been engaging in “Operation Chokepoint 2.0” [I71]. Coinbase has been busy filing Freedom of Information Act requests, hoping to secure documents that would prove that the FDIC was involved in such a nefarious campaign to “de-bank” the crypto industry by ordering banks to deny accounts or other services to anyone involved with the sector. Having failed to obtain such proof, Coinbase is going with the second best option: loudly proclaiming that they have such proof, and hoping no one will bother to dig through the rather dry emails between banks and banking regulators. Fortunately, I have several years of practice in digging through dry documents crypto industry figures hope no one will actually read. “In short, the contents are a shameful example of a government agency trying to cut off financial access to law-abiding American companies,” wrote Coinbase Chief Legal Officer Paul Grewal on Twitter.21 In long, the documents actually reflect mostly requests for more information about blockchain-related services provided or used by banks themselves, where the FDIC was seeking to do things like “gain an understanding of how the bank will ensure continued safe and sound operation as this activity is implemented”. Where the FDIC did request banks pause activities, it was again where those banks wer
    https://media.hachyderm.io/media_attachments/files/113/806/102/025/874/072/original/a971b53914d2bb7b.png
  Rocketman repeated this.
- Embed this notice
  Molly White (molly0xfff@hachyderm.io)'s status on Saturday, 11-Jan-2025 06:10:53 JST Molly White
  in reply to
  
  That and more in today's issue of Citation Needed. If you enjoyed it, please consider signing up for a free or pay-what-you-want subscription — it helps me to keep doing this work. Citation Needed is an independent publication, entirely supported by readers like you.
  https://www.citationneeded.news/signup
  
  In conversation about 3 months ago permalink
- Embed this notice
  Jorge Stolfi (jorgestolfi@mas.to)'s status on Saturday, 11-Jan-2025 06:13:03 JST Jorge Stolfi
  in reply to
  
  @molly0xfff
  Yet, as you know, every cryptocurrency is a pure ponzi scheme. That regulation is bad, because it implies that cryptocurrencies are legitimate enterprises -- which may be used in scams, but are not scams themselves...
  
  In conversation about 3 months ago permalink
- Embed this notice
  Darryl Ramm (darryl_ramm@hachyderm.io)'s status on Saturday, 11-Jan-2025 07:07:34 JST Darryl Ramm
  in reply to
  
  @molly0xfff
  Dry reader, spicy writer.
  
  In conversation about 3 months ago permalink
- Embed this notice
  Molly White (molly0xfff@hachyderm.io)'s status on Saturday, 11-Jan-2025 07:09:55 JST Molly White
  in reply to
  - Jorge Stolfi
  @JorgeStolfi ehh, i'm not sure the CFPB regulation implies BTC is any more legitimate than, say, Robux
  
  In conversation about 3 months ago permalink

Public

Conversation

Notices

Feeds