The SEC Goes After Crypto Exchanges - Why People are Angry 

Yeah but the abandonment of exchanges just walls off massive numbers of people from dealing in crypto. Having well-regulated exchanges would be a massive boost to crypto.

@@joewest3901 I don't know that it would be a massive boost. It would give the exchanges legitimacy, but at the same time it would require them to act legitimately. It would be a lot harder to run the pump-and-dump schemes that are mostly responsible for enriching the crypto bros when those schemes are suddenly subject to regulatory oversight. And once you can no longer build "to the moon!" coins on the backs of the suckers who buy in late (or at least not nearly as easily), where is the draw of crypto? Like the actual draw, not the idealistic nonsense about anonymity and freedom from government control that nobody really believes in anymore. Especially the latter when the whole point of this exercise is to intentionally subject crypto to government control.

@@altrag Crypto will never be fully subject to government control and "everyone" is a generalization it is not nonsense or idealisitc. Crypto is a currency alternative to fiat currency that is one of the main draws.

@@the_expidition427 > Crypto will never be fully subject to government control Then it will never be legitimate. Legitimacy requires oversight. > it is not nonsense or idealisitc It is. Currency requires trust in its stability. The USD and most other major currencies base their trust in their respective governments and national economic outputs. Crypto does not provide that kind of trust. Its possible that crypto coins could be minted with that kind of trust, but that would require imposing oversight - the very thing you're trying to avoid. Crypto is one of those "we want all of the rights but none of the responsibilities" type ideologies, and those just don't work out all that often in the real world. > Crypto is a currency alternative to fiat currency that is one of the main draws Except it isn't an alternative to fiat currency. No company is going to make a (major) transaction in a "currency" that could lose 20% of its value within an hour based on nothing more than some nerd's blog post. Sure, it kind of half-assed functions as an intermediate fiat currency in black and grey markets where avoiding oversight is more important than stability, but crypto will never be used on large scale among legitimate businesses. Not until it finds something stronger than "the popularity of the latest internet meme" to base its stability on. (And no, stablecoins don't cut it. They're explicitly tied to the value of real currency, meaning you can't replace real currency and retain that stability. Not that stablecoins have proven themselves to be as stable as they claim anyway. They're often just trading stability of value for stability of existence.)

The dream for the anarcho buyer/ converter is cognitively dissonant, as "free actors" trade finally mostly in the new defaultof crypto, they will simultaneously cash out sideways within the new finance paradigm with a big leg up. It's therefore hard to sympathize, but fascinating like crummy Dickens characters like Fagin.

Yeup. And if anything Binance has proven itself to be pretty shady in how it interacted with FTX & the degree of personal control / ownership CZ has over its operations. I suspect Binance really really doesn't want to be investigated because it may prove some things some crypto critics have suspected for a while now. Namely that they're running a Ponzi scheme and are insolvent, among other things.

As someone that’s been involved it’s crypto since it’s rise to popularity in 2015, I can definitely say claiming that half are a scam is an understatement. There are thousands if not millions where their technology will not go anywhere, or is definitively a scam. If anything, the least worrisome crypto is realistically the top 20 coins if not the top 10. At best, it’s a volatile investment where the investor should know the risks and accept them. Might as well pick the one with the most history.

@@robster7787 "volatile investments" shouldn't really be pushed into lay people, but here we are. Several years of those bastards trying to prove to us that this is the future.

Half? More like 95% are scams

Except they’re not investigating any specific list of crypto - they’re investigating the exchanges. Crypto can continue with no centralised exchanges, they’re just convenient. If the SEC went after crypto scams they’d be actually doing some good, but that’s not really their MO

seconded :)

There is a anti-crypto bias, but otherwise yes, very good channel

At least he’s upfront about where his biases are. Unlike certain owners of crypto exchanges who can’t seem to stop saying one thing in public and then doing the exact opposite in private. I’m sure it’s just a coincidence (again) and none of them were trying to deliberately break the law and manipulate investors or commit fraud.

hehehe... bagels 🥯

wpll spid

Less regs, too

Oops! He dropped the bagel on that one. Or did he? Was it approved for an IPO as he said, but then did the direct listing instead?

@@rossmacintosh5652 Yes regulation for that too.

Yeah it's a scam.

When the line is going up, nobody wants to regulate because it just stops people from accumulating wealth. When everything goes bust, the regulatory appetite surges because now there’s actually some evil to regulate out of the market. Is that right? Not really. But it makes perfect sense.

Yeah….. If the SEC had stopped FTX/Alameda back in 2019, everyone paying attention would have hailed SBF as a hero and victim of tyrannical overregulation. It’s not until people get hurt that anybody wants red tape, and when red tape protects people, you only notice it when it annoys you, so everyone ends up wanting it gone. Cycle of sticking hands into fires…..

Well, that's becuz SBF paid off some congressmen, and those congressmen wrote an angry letter to SEC, demanding that SEC not interfere with crypto "innovation". SBF was so so close to fulfilling his goal: getting congress to pass a crypto friendly bill. And the house of cards suddenly collapsed becuz SBF chose to rife up CZ. these 2 clowns deserve one another...

​@@joewest3901 no one accumulated wealth when line went up. It was all a ponzi

@@joewest3901 No it does not make perfect sense everyone doing the same thing does not make it safe only lucrative. Whether it is the tide that lifts all boats or the tide that shows whos skinny dipping there is almost always some type of shill to regulate, except the regulators took a backseat and turned a blind eye this time. As everyone had been doing and regulators are part of that whole.

Nobody wants your frameworks and regulations. Anything crypto that's being regulated is doomed and going to zero.

A total ban on crypto in the US would be inevitably enforced beyond its borders as a total world ban since US effectively owns and controls the finances of the entire world.

They want the legitimacy that comes with regulation, they don’t want the actual regulation when they discover that their business schemes are universally fraudulent

I strongly doubt Congress is going to give two craps about a relatively niche market trading on the value of rumors and precious little else, no matter how much publicity it gets. The SEC already exists, as does the FTC if crypto somehow wins its rather absurd bid to be labeled a "commodity".

It should be banned .. or regulated like gambling

Every regulation intended to limit freedom of speech and privacy is justified because "we need to protect the children", politicians with ill second intents will always pretend to be doing something good; regulations can be good or bad, regulations can be fair or written implicitly to protect the incumbents' interests. Gary Gensler is not a good actor, check out his courses from when he was teaching, he was being pretty clear that finance for him was for the most part rent seeking because he was able to extract resources from all the other professions; he is now trying to find himself a new position in politics pleasing Elizabeth Warren and the current administration.

What an ignorant comment, bitcoin is the most regulated asset in the world. It's regulated by immutable code.

​@@1st_edition You must be a troll lmao

what "regulations" though What the SEC is talking about is regulations that would make all cryptocurrencies illegal, they have been saying it for years

@@1st_edition lmao I love sarcasm it’s the best type of internet humor

Bingo

the SEC doesn't accept it as such, so they can't even get a license to do it that way

@@user-xl5kd6il6c cryptobros will constantly change their definition of crypto so they can keep their grift going

Cause they started with only Bitcoin and few others and now into shit coin scams

@@mattmmilli8287 they were selling way more than just BTC then. A lot of the alt coins the SEC has a problem with (ADA, MATIC, SOL, ALGO, etc) recently were all being sold on coinbase at that time.

Not the first time a company goes rogue after being cleared at first. It's unpredictable, that's why we have the SEC.

@@lunarmodule6419 what did they do recently where they went rogue, that they weren’t already doing in the past?

@@bootysnatcher8069 Insider trading , listing a crapload of shitcoins which are no different from penny stocks, except it's unregistered. Anyways, coinbase argument is weak. Being publicly traded doesn't mean you have the license to do whatever you want. Only entitled cryptobros think this way.

Many unfair things happen but until it effects us we don't care, but it's always the same assholes at the top perpetrating it.

Recommend you read about the Howey test on investopedia and why at least some crypto is considered an investment.

​​@@benjaminfranklin329if you're buying and hoping the line goes up, that's speculation, gambling, which is what most crypto buyers are doing.

There's no debate here. There's the sheriff, there are the fraudsters, there are victims, and there are bystanders. Which one are you, chump?

Talk about a powder keg trail

Yet both of those things happen more in the TradFi markets than they do in crypto 😂 so what rug is the SEC's credibility hiding under? I don't see it

Well if they are the answer seems pretty obvious to me

I'm angry that the SEC pretends to care about fraud when 70% of stock volume doesn't even go through NYSE

@@xraceboyex That's not even illegal. Banning dark pools is a Congressional matter.

I don't doubt it, but is there any particular reason?

the other nite I sent 20. usd to a different wallet, when it got there I had 4.22 usd. then I tried trade 56m shib to eth and there was 2 fees 1 network and other tiny fee. altogether it added up to 88 bucks usd and then try different times and it got as high as 186. usd for fees

Have they?

@@drgrey7026 Would be a good topic for a video, but yes. Canada taxes it as capital gains.

@@ZacJ I mean yeah so do we that's definitely not the hard thing to figure out with crypto.

@@drgrey7026 well, go on, tell the class what is...

@@ZacJ where do I begin, defi by its very foundation often seeks to avoid regulation, while most chains don't include privacy measures on chain, mixers and other 3rd party services have made crypto a invariable revolution in money laundering and online crime. They don't have the safety measures or consumer protections involved with centralized banking so inexperienced users don't have avenues to recover their money after being scammed. I mean I can't possibly list all of them here (I didn't even get to the main ones) but what category of taxes it should be in was a fairly simple problem capital gains tax can apply to any appreciation from stock and bonds to Pokémon cards, especially since crypto is asset fairly easy to appraise that part was pretty easy, now there are other problems with taxing crypto but those are outside of the scope of a yt comment.

idk who didn't expect this tbh lol.

These "stock markets are rigged" idiots are always hypocrites.

It takes one to know one.

Bro it’s plain bagel , he’s literally a Traditional Finance worshipper

"trying to phase out cash" As though digital currencies are needed for that. Places like SK, China, etc already work cashless with traditional interbank system, you literally don't need anything new.

@@anivicuno9473 my point was precisely that the _completely digitalised_ interbank system you're mentioning is, indeed, digitalised. Digital doesn't mean crypto, it means something that lives on computers/computer memory. Most of the dollars that exist in the world live only on machines and have no physical backing or paper counterpart, not even in a vault somewhere. My point was that traditional currencies _are digital_ nowadays. If the quote was "There's no need for cryptocurrencies" then I'd have no complaints with it.

@@amargasaurus5337 which “side” are you on? How is digital money different/better than crypto? Please don’t say blockchain. I don’t care about that. I’m asking what would even be the benefit of having crypto instead of the mostly digital that we already have?

@DouglasLoring wall if text incoming ._. A couple paragraphs was me excercisisng restraint, the following is what happens when I don't 😅 I'm on no particular side. To be completely honest, I'm more of an onlooker and prefer to wait and see what happens. I think crypto needs regulation because it seems pretty evident that the concept is still too vulnerable to scams pyramid schemes (and paradoxically enough also to regulations themselves) to be useful for the average joe I can see there are valid arguments against regulation too, after all it's not like cash is particularly tightly controlled or tracked. And then there's also the fact that most governments seem to agree they'd prefer trackable and easily printable currencies over cash, for what I presume are totally legit and non despotical reasons (irony? me? never) I'll also add that when I said that if the statement were "There's no need for cryptocurrencies" I'd have no problem with it, that didn't mean I agree with it. All it means is that (unlike the original quote) I think it would be a coherent statement.. even if I don't actually agree with it. As I said before I think it's still a new technology (I know it's already like a decade or two old but in broad civilization terms that is still baby steps) and am waiting to see how it develops in the decades to come. Aaaaal that being said, you can consider me generally a center-right guy that airs in the side of caution and dislikes both anarchy and totalitarian policies. I'd rather we all keep our freedoms, within reason and respecting eachother as much as possible. If I had to choose I'd take pyramid schemes over techno-state dystopias any day of the week, buuut I'd prefer we got rid of both given the chance. Stable, fair and reliable currencies are the best ones.

Gary sends his regards and a wink & laughing emoji...

You do have a point. But not all hedge funds make money.

Bingo. The only reason the government is meddling is to get a piece of the pie.

@@lordlee6473 I know. That's why I said "Many" not "All". I'm sure there are plenty of smaller hedge funds that get wiped out.

@@trisbane4086 Yup. That's why these cockroaches are so eager to become politicians.

If you have any evidence that they have been illegally manipulating markets, then produce it and I'm sure they will be taken to task. Otherwise, you're just blowing smoke.

The USD is more harmful than any crypto lol. I'd be more in support of banning that

Huh

From what I’ve heard Coinbase has been asking the SEC what regulations it should be following to maintain compliance with the law and has been left in the dark about that.

The SEC is a criminal organization, yes.

@@Fractal_32 The rule of SEC is clear: "You cannot be an exchange, a broker-dealer and a clearing house at the same time." Coinbase would need to give up two of the three, or at least split up, before they could have any chance of compliance. However, they're probably not willing to follow the rule.

It's the classic set a patsy to cover up your crimes 😂

No one caes

Parody argument “If a person can be stopped by a lawsuit it doesn’t deserve to exist” We need more than this to say something shouldn’t exist

@@thanatosdriver1938 nah he's right. If a "decentralized" thing can be taken down with a centralized lawsuit then there's literally no reason to use it. If normal people stop caring about crypto because they can't get their hands on it, it benefits everyone

😂 70% of stock volume doesn't even go through NYSE servers. You're mistaken. They are only willing to conspire

They never were worth anything. They are only worth something if you can con an even bigger idiot into buying them tomorrow.

They already aren't worth anything. They have never been anything other than a "bigger fool" scam.

Liars burn in hell

That does seem wrong. BTC is *absolutely* not a commodity. Of course, I'm not sure how you can consider a ponzi scheme to be a security either.

Except we know for a fact BTC was intended as a commodity as Satoshi its inventor sold all his coins a couple months after setting up the system when he had recruited some miners. Dogecoin was likewise a joke. Most of the others were intended to make money, and it's currently unknowable how many will be banned, but certainly a lot of them.

@@samsonsoturian6013, I think you confuse the word commodity with currency. A commodity is a good that is mass produced and sold for consumption, like oranges. Bitcoin was intended to replace currency, but without any way to prevent inflation/deflation, it was doomed to fail at that. Also what does whether the supposed inventor ( we still don't know who he really was ) sold or didn't sell his coins have to do with anything?

@@phillipsusi1791 I think you don't know as much about this topic as you think. Commodity and currency are not mutually exclusive

Lmao crypto is no threat to the USD. The dollar is backed by the fact that some of the biggest oil producers only accept dollars as payment, what's these dumb ass coins backed by?