Coinbase Could Move Away From US if No Regulatory Clarity, CEO Brian Armstrong Says (coindesk.com) 24
Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong indicated that the crypto exchange would consider moving away from the U.S. if the regulatory environment for the industry does not become clearer. From a report: "Anything is on the table, including relocating or whatever is necessary" he said after former U.K. Chancellor George Osbourne asked whether he could see Coinbase leaving the U.S. at Fintech Week in London. "I think the U.S. has the potential to be an important market for crypto, but right now we are not seeing that regulatory clarity that we need," he said. "I think in a number of years if we don't see that regulatory clarity emerge in the U.S. we may have to consider investing more elsewhere in the world."
And then (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:And then (Score:5, Insightful)
Please go.
Don't let the door hit you on the way out.
We need to scam people (Score:1)
Re: We need to scam people (Score:4, Interesting)
Ok (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't let the door hit you on the ass on your way out.
Have no fear coinbase! (Score:3)
Re: Have no fear coinbase! (Score:2)
Exactly treat yourself as any other currency exchange and asset exchange and watch there are tons of regulations you aren't following because you think you are special exemption and not just another crypto scam.
Re: (Score:1)
"We need regulatory clarity."
"OK. Tokens should be treated as securities and you should register with the SEC like any other exchange."
"We need regulatory clarity, or we may have to leave the US."
Re: (Score:1)
There's no "leaving".
Don't let the door hit you... (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out!
We don't need any more ass prints on the door.
As for regulatory clarity: The regulations exist. Fraud is still fraud even when committed "on a computer". A security is defined by how it is used, not by an exhaustive list. Banking is still banking, even if you don't call yourself a "bank". Financial crimes are still crimes. Etc.
Clarity my ass (Score:2)
The SEC is being quite clear - these guys just don't want to hear that the time of the grift is coming to an end and they are now expected to follow the damn rules.
Someone kick them in the ass on their way out of the country.
Re: (Score:2)
The SEC is being quite clear - these guys just don't want to hear that the time of the grift is coming to an end and they are now expected to follow the damn rules.
Someone kick them in the ass on their way out of the country.
The thing is, OFAC is using the fact that, eg most Ethereum stake holders are US based and hence, OFAC can lean on them to censor the blockchain, giving them lists of wallets for which they are not allowed to process transactions.
If the SEC results in these stake holders leaving the USA, then OFAC loses its leverage and ETH will cease to be censored by the US federal government. I can imagine there may be some tense conversations going on between SEC and OFAC, though not 100% sure if OFAC is actually aware
Just a month ago... (Score:2)
https://slashdot.org/story/23/... [slashdot.org]
So they're now saying it a little more clearly.
Willy Wonka: (Score:3)
No. Stop. Come back.
Armstrong is a thief and a liar. (Score:2)
Self-regulating (Score:2)
The SEC just got destroyed in Congress (Score:3)
Watch Gary Gensler testifying [twitter.com] if you think it's obvious that the SEC has jurisdiction over crypto. He was asked "is Eth a commodity or a security," and not only wouldn't answer but kept rambling nonsense that was completely irrelevant to anything he wasked.
This site is full of amateur lawyers who think they can litigate a Howey Test case, but that was the chairman of the SEC and a particularly qualified one from what I understand. He could not and would not answer the question because he was under oath and knew that many of those congressmen are lawyers and have lawyers on their staff. They also have the ability to force the SEC to cough up internal legal discussions.
The CFTC already ruled that in their estimation, Eth was a commodity. There are no legal restrictions on trading commodities themselves. You can buy, say, agriculture products or precious metals and the CFTC doesn't give a rat's ass what you do with them so long as you're trading in the actual goods and not contracts. That's part of why Gensler was so dumbstruck. If he said it was a security, he'd have a very hard battle to prove precise application of the Howey Test. If he said commodity, he loses all jurisdiction.
Russia? (Score:1)