|
aw frig aw dang it posted:That works because voo and ivv aren't considered substantially identical. I mean, maybe they should be considered identical but they aren't for now. Whereas selling bitcoins to buy bitcoins really couldn't be anything besides a wash sale, if they're securities. i believe the current consensus is that bitcoin is not a security (it's more like a commodity), but any token that is issued for the purpose of raising decentralized financing for some project (no matter how you dance around it) is definitely a security. i'm betting some of those tokens are sufficiently correlated (ie they just track the crypto market as a whole) that you could make it work
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2022 21:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 6, 2024 19:17 |
|
|
DELETE CASCADE posted:i believe the current consensus is that bitcoin is not a security (it's more like a commodity), but any token that is issued for the purpose of raising decentralized financing for some project (no matter how you dance around it) is definitely a security. i'm betting some of those tokens are sufficiently correlated (ie they just track the crypto market as a whole) that you could make it work Yeah, loads of tokens behave like they might as well be pegged to Bitcoin so you could probably do that. Just gotta hope the one you chose doesn't rugpull in the 30 days you're holding it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2022 21:05
|
|
|
DELETE CASCADE posted:i believe the current consensus is that bitcoin is not a security (it's more like a commodity), but any token that is issued for the purpose of raising decentralized financing for some project (no matter how you dance around it) is definitely a security. i'm betting some of those tokens are sufficiently correlated (ie they just track the crypto market as a whole) that you could make it work yeah i think that's probably the fairest assumption about it. ether is also prooooooobably not a security. issue is that commodities regulations are sort of in a "eh only people with way too much money to blow are going to get involved in this poo poo" so aside from making sure to protect farmers who use the exchanges to hedge crop prices commodities regulation isn't really customer-focused enough
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2022 21:05
|
|
|
DELETE CASCADE posted:well in the land of normal securities people do tax loss harvesting all the time. sell your voo and buy ivv, feds won't care. presumably this can be done with tokens as well? well, key thing there is that IVV is not VOO, it's IVV. sure they're baskets of the same underlying investments, and yes this is probably a shortcoming of our current regulations, but in the eyes of the irs and the sec and the nyse and god, they're not the same thing. and a reason you presumably can't do that with tokens is because there's no such similar situation with tokens, where there is something that walks and talks and quacks like exactly the same thing, but legally is not exactly the same thing. there's no index funds that are same-but-different, each token and coin tries to do similar blockchain poo poo but all try to spin some unique twist on it. there's actually a neat IRS memo from last year that addressed the question "does exchanging BTC for ETH, or BTC for LTC, qualify as a like-kind exchange?" the answer they arrived at was "no, BTC and ETH and LTC are functionally different enough that swapping them does not make a like-kind exchange." That memo did not explicitly address whether a BTC-for-BTC swap is a like-kind exchange, but IMO it pretty strongly implies that it would. The situation being addressed by that memo was the flipside of what that poster in the gray thread is getting at (and of conventional loss harvesting in securities markets): back in 2018, someone tried to make those BTC/ETH and BTC/LTC swaps and then call them like-kind exchanges, and the IRS said "nope, recognize your gain and pay your tax". Now, graythread OP is trying to swap BTC for BTC, and then not call it a nontaxable like-kind exchange in order to take a loss, and... I really dunno about that! e: DELETE CASCADE posted:i believe the current consensus is that bitcoin is not a security (it's more like a commodity), but any token that is issued for the purpose of raising decentralized financing for some project (no matter how you dance around it) is definitely a security. i'm betting some of those tokens are sufficiently correlated (ie they just track the crypto market as a whole) that you could make it work if you're looking at shitcoins that are probably "securities", and we decide to start treating them legally as "securities", sure, there are probably a bunch of shitcoin-securities that correlate closely enough that you could sell one and buy one that gives you identical investing results, akin to a VOO-to-IVV move. but that all assumes we're treating them as "securities", and if we get to that point (inshallah), then we're talking about a bunch of unregistered securities offerings being traded illegally on unregistered securities exchanges, and the folks touching these shitcoins have bigger problems to worry about than "loss harvesting" e2: also, when you describe the current consensus, I think you're correct about the consensus understanding of most posters in threads like these... but I don't think that's the general legal consensus yet. (if it were, every crypto exchange would've already been blasted for violations of securities exchange laws.) The SEC suit against the Coinbase inside traders seems to be a major step towards establishing that legal consensus, though. Blotto_Otter fucked around with this message at 21:19 on Jul 21, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2022 21:07
|
|
|
you trade bitcoin for wrapped bitcoin (an eth token that is pegged 1:1 to bitcoin), and then you trade your wrapped bitcoin for bitcoin. wala, taxation is theft!
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2022 21:17
|
|
|
SubG posted:conan! what is best in crypto? 
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2022 21:17
|
|
|
Blotto_Otter posted:if you're looking at shitcoins that are probably "securities", and we decide to start treating them legally as "securities", sure, there are probably a bunch of shitcoin-securities that correlate closely enough that you could sell one and buy one that gives you identical investing results, akin to a VOO-to-IVV move. but that all assumes we're treating them as "securities", and if we get to that point (inshallah), then we're talking about a bunch of unregistered securities offerings being traded illegally on unregistered securities exchanges, and the folks touching these shitcoins have bigger problems to worry about than "loss harvesting" it boggles my loving mind that "initial coin offerings" got away with it when they could not be more obvious about being securities you are literally trying to make it clear that it's basically an IPO!
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2022 21:25
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:it boggles my loving mind that "initial coin offerings" got away with it when they could not be more obvious about being securities look ico is not ipo, there's like a 33% difference between them
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2022 21:49
|
|
|
Boxturret posted:look ico is not ipo, there's like a 33% difference between them Hamming is SO mad right now.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2022 21:51
|
|
|
iirc one token (tezos i think) got close to being potentially ruled a security in a lawsuit by its holders after its ico but settled before a ruling was issued
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2022 21:55
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:it boggles my loving mind that "initial coin offerings" got away with it when they could not be more obvious about being securities oh this document explaining the nature of our coin-based organization and our strategies for managing it? it's not a prospectus, it's a whitepaper
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2022 21:59
|
|
|
https://mobile.twitter.com/matt_levine/status/1550202036570017792
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2022 22:03
|
|
|
it's really clear that at least the american predilection to not be seen preventing "innovation" is loving up the obviously scammy behavior in a new completely transparent cellophane coat.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2022 22:19
|
|
|
Malloc Voidstar posted:https://www.minecraft.net/en-us/article/minecraft-and-nfts It's mind boggling that anyone thought this was going to happen. Did people expect Mojang/Microsoft to go "Wow this NFT worlds grift looks great, let's bolt their ownership of our procedurally generated worlds onto Minecraft at our own expense!" or something?
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2022 22:21
|
|
|
Viscous Soda posted:It's mind boggling that anyone thought this was going to happen. Did people expect Mojang/Microsoft to go "Wow this NFT worlds grift looks great, let's bolt their ownership of our procedurally generated worlds onto Minecraft at our own expense!" or something? yes, just like the guys who tried to do it with olive gardens they surely wouldn't reject this bright, vibrant community we've built for them?
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2022 22:24
|
|
|
it sure is, but at least they're kinda-sorta saying it! https://twitter.com/matt_levine/status/1550206426244603904 sure, the best time to blast the securities fraudsters for securities fraud would have been way back before they got billions in VC and went through an IPO, but the next best time is now. they are way, way too loving late to this party, but the only way they were ever going to start busting it up was by making some examples out of the small fries first.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2022 22:25
|
|
|
That SEC filing is hilarious btw. Just gatling gunning nearly a dozen tokens in a row YOURE A SECURITY BLAM YOURE A SECURITY BLAMMM YOURE NOT HAHA JUST JOKONG A SECURITY KABLAMM
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2022 22:28
|
|
|
kw0134 posted:it's really clear that at least the american predilection to not be seen preventing "innovation" is loving up the obviously scammy behavior in a new completely transparent cellophane coat. I've been listening to an audiobook on historical economic bubbles and it's wild how the same stuff happens over and over again. The British Parliament was wringing their hands over not wanting to stifle innovation during the Latin American mining bubble of the 1820s. This was only a hundred years after the South Seas Bubble obliterated millions of pounds of wealth and ground the national economy nearly to a halt. It all just keeps happening.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2022 22:33
|
|
|
DELETE CASCADE posted:i believe the current consensus is that bitcoin is not a security (it's more like a commodity), but any token that is issued for the purpose of raising decentralized financing for some project (no matter how you dance around it) is definitely a security. i'm betting some of those tokens are sufficiently correlated (ie they just track the crypto market as a whole) that you could make it work Eh...we have non enforcement actions pointing to certain gatekept tokens being classified as a non security by the SEC. It is getting increasingly rare tho mostly due developers own statements i.e. this'll make you rich with no effort!
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2022 22:34
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:it boggles my loving mind that "initial coin offerings" got away with it when they could not be more obvious about being securities ICOs strangely enough aren't an automatic signifier for security status. DAO token and the like helped make it a tricky proposition but a project that acts as a platform for new projects that calls itself an ICO won't immediately get the SEC ban hammer. It's the facts and circumstances of what's going not what they particularly call themselves
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2022 22:37
|
|
|
Boxturret posted:yes, just like the guys who tried to do it with olive gardens Lol, I'd forgotten about the Olive Garden thing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2022 22:46
|
|
|
Viscous Soda posted:It's mind boggling that anyone thought this was going to happen. Did people expect Mojang/Microsoft to go "Wow this NFT worlds grift looks great, let's bolt their ownership of our procedurally generated worlds onto Minecraft at our own expense!" or something? this was quite big deal at the time so I've no idea why they thought there was any other outcome other than Microsoft killing it as soon as they heard about it. http://web.archive.org/web/20140617065433/https://mojang.com/2014/06/lets-talk-server-monetisation/
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2022 22:51
|
|
|
uh they're the securities and exchange commission. get back to us when you have an insecurities and exchange commission
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2022 22:57
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/matt_levine/status/1550207993878401027
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2022 23:05
|
|
|
Now they're trying to pump Celsius under the promise of a moon short squeeze.  https://mobile.twitter.com/beezyfrfr/status/1547494811791671304 All the way up to 0.6535 USD. Let's see what the year looks like: 
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2022 23:58
|
|
|
what's CEFi
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2022 00:11
|
|
|
Boxturret posted:what's CEFi the one before DEFi
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2022 00:14
|
|
|
Boxturret posted:what's CEFi Celsius financial insecurities they understand acronyms as well as finance.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2022 00:23
|
|
|
stinch posted:this was quite big deal at the time so I've no idea why they thought there was any other outcome other than Microsoft killing it as soon as they heard about it. the nft worlds twitter tags are full of crypto nerds claiming that they only bought Minecraft for the nft stuff and never owned it before and they insist on getting a refund from microsoft some of them are probably lying, but some of them probably are big enough joyless nerds that they never even looked at minecraft until it became a potential profit source
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2022 00:32
|
|
|
yeah all those times i purchased something that neither the manufacturer nor the vendor promised that the product did what an unrelated and unauthorized third party claimed it would do, definitely a basis for refunds.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2022 00:37
|
|
|
why does minecraft banning nft integration matter though the "nft worlds" are just post-it-notes with a minecraft world generation seed written on them right? you can still use the seed
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2022 00:47
|
|
|
usually when you make a token that will eventually Do Something, the features you promise and the infrastructure it will supposedly work on don't actually exist yet, so there are no limits to the promises you can make. in this case, they screwed up and promised something that does exist would Do Something. and the thing that does exist was able to say "No we won't", because it exists. rookie mistake.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2022 00:54
|
|
|
Blotto_Otter posted:here’s the tweet that was apparently credited in the DOJ press release outstanding
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2022 00:55
|
|
|
RPATDO_LAMD posted:why does minecraft banning nft integration matter though legitamacy, makes the price go up* *price may not actually go up
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2022 00:56
|
|
|
RPATDO_LAMD posted:why does minecraft banning nft integration matter though nah, they had their own modded Minecraft server fork that would add a bunch of crypto bullshit directly to Minecraft, like letting server owners charge players to use parts of the world, or giving users free crypto tokens if they spend a certain amount of time playing on your server but their modded server would only activate those features if you used one of their pregenerated world seeds and had the matching NFT you can still use the seed, but servers using the modded server software with the crypto features built in now risk getting banned
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2022 01:22
|
|
|
Boxturret posted:legitamacy, makes the price go up* yeah this is a huge company loudly declaring that NFTs are not worth the trouble when you lose the amoral corporate bean counters you’re in real trouble
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2022 01:33
|
|
|
Coinbase chief lawyer is shocked, appalled, horrified, mortified that anyone would dare suggest they're illegally trading a bunch of unregistered securities https://twitter.com/iampaulgrewal/status/1550256816516345856 a hit dog hollers
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2022 02:24
|
|
|
lol that Coinbase' chief lawyer has what appears to be a cryptopunk and a .eth handle, Coinbase is loving doomed.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2022 02:32
|
|
|
he's too poor for that his avatar is a "founder friends" nft  it appears to be an nft collection made specifically to be used as twitter profile pics for the creator's buddies, as none of them have ever been sold (no price history)  you'd think if you were going to mint an nft of jpeg for the sole purpose of getting a hexagon on twitter you would at least pick a jpeg that wasn't ugly
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2022 02:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 6, 2024 19:17 |
|
|
 imagine willingly using this as your avatar
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2022 02:41
|
|
