[McAtNite]

I’ve have the unpleasant task of interacting with auditors from the SEC regularly in a heavily regulated industry. Trying to get any sort of real, factual guidelines from them is a fool’s errand.

Their auditors views and interpretations vary wildly year to year, and they will not provide any written guidelines for their positions. Instead they insist it’s up to the discretion of the individual auditor. I’ve seen fairly reserved people in screaming matches by the end of it all, and concessions will eventually be made which seems strange for a regulatory body to do.

All that is that say, they won’t backtrack on anything. They’ll simply say that those were the views of those people as individuals, and they are not reflective of the official stance of the regulatory body.

[JumpCrisscross]

> they will not provide any written guidelines for their positions

They legally can't. That's rulemaking. There are formal processes for government agencies issuing binding guidance.

There is a real problem with ambiguous laws. But asking the SEC to be your lawyer is a bit of a fool's errand. Coinbase absolutely knew they were breaking the law when they set out; they, and the rest of crypto, just hoped they could change it before they got caught.

[hef19898]

While I have no experience in dealing with the SEC, I do in dealing with EASA and SOX audits. One common theme, both give you the barebone rules as written, and it is up to you to figure out how to follow them. In case of EASA, you define your own processes, and auditors sign off on those. You can hire external consultants to help you, but in the end it is your responsibility.

In case of SOX, you are required to have one company doing the prep work (processes, controls, internal "audits") with you, while another company does the formal audots and signs of on the balance sheets and financiap results. The latter wont give you any guidance neither when it comes to how compliance can be achieved.

And in both cases, there are always people that refuse to accept the well established guiderails and limits, when those are explained to them. Excuses range from inconvenient to I-do-not-want-to to "but what about innovation". Which is just bonkers, because both, SOX and EASA basically allow you to write your own internal rule book, and still people are not happy. It seems following rules is just below some people and their egos. Not that auditors care so.

[hsjqllzlfkf]

I'm not doubting anything you're saying, but are there examples of such problematic behaviors in the public record?

[McAtNite]

Public record being official statements from business or government entities? I’m not aware of any personally.

Really I feel like I should clarify the above since I wrote it pretty late at night, and it I don’t think I really summed the experience up well. Another commenter mentioned their experience with other regulatory bodies that really cuts closer to what I intended to say:

“While I have no experience in dealing with the SEC, I do in dealing with EASA and SOX audits. One common theme, both give you the barebone rules as written, and it is up to you to figure out how to follow them.”

That really is my entire complaint. The grey area of what “counts” according to an auditor will vary over time, and what might count one year will suddenly be inadequate the next or vice versa.

[rhaway84773]

The entire cryptocurrency space is filled with genuine grifters and conmen.

It’s absolutely reasonable to doubt anyone making unsubstantiated and unverifiable claims in this space.

[hsjqllzlfkf]

When I said problematic behavior, I was referring to this:

> Their auditors views and interpretations vary wildly year to year, and they will not provide any written guidelines for their positions.

That's why I started with the disclaimer that "yes I know crypto it's a scam", but the regulators also seem to be making it difficult to stay compliant.

[whoknowswhat11]

Ha! So true. And there would be huge savings if they would both simplify things and focus much harder on substance

[ethanbond]

Assuming that the regulated entities wouldn’t just move to the hinterlands and edge cases of that newly simplified/clarified/substantiated law in order to skirt it.

Which, of course they would, and would go so far as to create new forms of currency to try to do it.