[maccard]

I don't have skin in the game (not a crypto fan, not in the US and not an investor in coinbase), but I don't think your sarcasm is warranted here (side note for any other readers, that's _not_ what his linked thread says).

Regulatory capture is _real_, and dispraportionately favours incumbents. As regulations are tightened on crypto in general, firms that are not involved in the creation of said regulations are going to find themselves on the wrong side of the law. Furthermore, if _any_ organization has a reputation of taking sides, it's the SEC.

[duxup]

I don't think regulatory capture is the issue here. We're talking about a disclosure of risks ... that seems reasonable to me.

Dude says there is no risk of bankruptcy and is predicting court case outcomes... and it is clearly in his financial interest to make the arguments he is making.

The system is rigged and other truthy arguments are all but standard operating procedure for whatever crytpo idea someone comes up with. Those arguments doesn't make mean we shouldn't be skeptical.

[maccard]

The problem is that the disclosure of risks is written in such a way that captures the existing situatio nand makes it hard for a valid crypto firm to not post... exactly this.

> The system is rigged and other truthy arguments are all but standard operating procedure for whatever crytpo idea someone comes up with.

But remember that applies to both sides of the coin - the SEC disclosure of risks claiming there's a huge risk of monetary loss _is_ true, but it's also unavoidable as (to my understanding) there isn't currently a way for coinbase to be FDIC insured.

> Those arguments doesn't make mean we shouldn't be skeptical.

You should be incredibly skeptical, but you should be informed of what you're skeptical about.

[duxup]

>The problem is that the disclosure of risks is written in such a way that captures the existing situatio nand makes it hard for a valid crypto firm to not post... exactly this.

Because ... they aren't FDIC insured nor do they provide any reliable protections for their user's money?

It's hard not to post it, because it is true.

[maccard]

The problem is that there is no alternative statement for them to make. The disclosure of risks require them to be FDIC insured or state there is a risk of loss in bankruptcy, and given they don't have the option of FDIC insurance, they have to declare the risk. The problem is that coinbase don't have the choice to be insured, yet they get labelled as though they're yolo'ing it _whether they are or not_ because the FDIC don't insure the asset class they're trading.

[tekknik]

Coinbase is insured. Crypto balances are insured against theft, and fiat balances are deposited into accounts that are then FDIC (or whatever is equivalent for other countries) insured.

https://www.coinbase.com/legal/insurance

[gonzo41]

The thing with crypto is its just reinventing money and all the same crap over. Right now it's like banking in the 1820's with no parachute.

Crypto isn't living up to it's PR an I don't really understand why people can't see its flaws.

[galangalalgol]

It is probably because we don't understand finance, economics or their history. There is an obligatory xkcd somewhere but I'm too lazy to find it. Software people occasionally find great solutions for existing problems pre-tech X. As experts in tech X they tend to trivialize existing domain knowledge because obviously X has disrupted all that.

Edit: I got less lazy. https://m.xkcd.com/793/

[maccard]

I never claimed otherwise, simply that a massive disclosure of risk is going to favour the instituitions that the disclosure of risk was designed for.

[tekknik]

> Crypto isn't living up to it's PR an I don't really understand why people can't see its flaws.

Because people are trying to get rich off of it. I believe a majority know it’s a horrible “currency”, they just want money.