bit¢oin$

its all made up to some degree but some is more made up than others, crypto was trying to grow to the point that it by virtue of its size became more real, but it never really got close, particularly considering a lot of its growth was fake too

that's not what this 14-year-old turd told me online. and he seemed extremely confident

Real money? You mean the made up
FIAT currency crying laughing emoji, drools into lap

the next stage is to arbitrage the made-upness differential, enjoy being real ilxors

hey its the company that advertises during sports that its the above the board fully audited usa based exchange

Coinbase fined $100M over KYC and AML failures https://t.co/JI5peeKy63

— Protos (@Protos) January 4, 2023

hah that's just a state investigation, that's not even the feds

2023 and you can't find a slurp juice anywhere

Can’t get over the fact that Logan Paul subscribed to my Patreon, advertised it on his main channel, said he admired my “work ethic” & “creativity”, and then said he’s suing me. https://t.co/eYB57EIHgQ pic.twitter.com/8guq428rtM

— Coffeezilla (@coffeebreak_YT) January 4, 2023

fyi that guy is a crypto muckraking youtuber who just did a video on logan pauls many nft crimes

he has this extreme cringe scifi noir schtick but he does do a good job digging stuff up, its actual journalism happening on youtube now that i think about it, waht a world

“One second of research would prove that to be false,” Paul hit back. “You can definitely hatch eggs and even breed your animals.”

lmao just the dumbest shit ever

Want a MasterShake read of that line

is this a slurp juice thing

its slurp juice adjacent

it’s also extremely On Cinema

this is one of my favorite songs

https://cointelegraph.com/news/bitcoin-core-developer-claims-to-have-lost-200-btc-in-hack/

bonus, he's a mel gibson-y "fuck this newfangled catholicism" catholic *and* a monarchist

and oh wow what's this, there was a bitcoin fundraiser for him just 5 yrs ago, after his house got dinged by hurricane irma. maybe the bitcoin-munity will pull together once again and funnel more fake dumb money to this choad.

More generally, the sentiment is that a bunch of crypto VCs are in a really bad spot regarding insider trading, something I've called out here on many occasions

It doesn't matter if they were/are securities, you can't insider trade

— Leigh Drogen (@LDrogen) January 5, 2023

what if you're in congress when you do it

then its ok

It doesn't matter if they were/are securities, you can't insider trade
— Leigh Drogen (@LDrogen) January 5, 2023

What is the basis of that statement?

I mean I will feel a bit uninformed if/when someone points it out to me, but I'm pretty sure that "insider trading" isn't just, like, a common law crime. You have to have some specific regulatory scheme involved. And if it's not a security, then what is the basis of "you can't insider trade"?

insider trading is pretty much based on caselaw, there is no statutory basis iirc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insider_trading#Court_decisions

yeah heres a matt levine column examining the issue https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2022-06-02/don-t-insider-trade-nfts

iirc he basically says insider trading is a type of securities fraud and its really the fraud that matters, so if youre not insider trading securities its just some other type of fraud

Paywalled. Insider trading in securities is all under 10b-5 and 20A. I've never heard it suggested that you could insider trade, like, beanie babies or real estate, for example.

heres an archived one https://archive.ph/eFNP9, great service btw just put the url of the paywalled article in and its prob already there, the article is about a guy getting charged for insider trading nfts

which def arent securities

Paywalled. Insider trading in securities is all under 10b-5 and 20A. I've never heard it suggested that you could insider trade, like, beanie babies or real estate, for example.

― longtime caller, first time listener (man alive), Thursday, January 5, 2023 9:26 PM (four minutes ago)

as you know, 10b-5 doesn't define what insider trading is. and obviously, there is nothing statutory that says how to define crypto.

i'm not an expert here but it seems to me a lot of the crypto cases the SEC is bringing is trying to establish caselaw that says yes, crypto is securities - and once you get that hook you can then try to use 10b-5 (if you're the SEC). 20A appears to be private right of action only?

that insider trading NFT case isn't a 10b-5 case, they're charging the guy with wire fraud. levine's point is though that the 'fraud' in question here looks just like insider trading, which is based on a theory of fraud via caselaw under 10b-5, 20A, etc.

seems like the reason insider trading is associated with securities is because its just a good fit as far as a fraud to do theres tons of opportunity for it, as levine points out the nft case is pretty weird a byproduct of that market just being bizarre, like straight crypto coins eg bitcoin is prob not a security because its not a group investment and then if you think about the insider trading opportunities theyre just not there they way they are for stocks, like maybe if you worked for a mining company you might have some inside info to trade on i guess, but then some of the web3 stuff and crypto derivative things are obvs securities

i think you meant to say 'crypto' instead of 'securities' in the first instance

idk with crypto it seems like its often other types of fraud, a lot market manipulation stuff

you said 'insider trading is associated with securities' which is, uh, true... i think you meant to say 'crypto' instead

no thats what i meant to say

Rule 10b5-1 does define what insider trading is, fwiw
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/17/240.10b5-1

insider trading is a good crime to do with securities, its a market where theres lots of actionable inside info

IDK if the SEC is now trying to define crypto as a security, my memory (although I didn't follow this that closely) was that both the SEC and CFTC kept dicking around on whether or not crypto is a security, commodity, or neither, and never resolved it, although I think there are specific cases of token type offerings or crypto-related products being found to be securities.

I don't think crytpo itself (bitcoin, eth, etc.) is really a good fit for "securities" fwiw.

yeah thats what i think, but like a DAO is obvs just a company and its coins are effectively stock, obvious security

insider trading is a good crime to do with securities, its a market where theres lots of actionable inside info

Rule 10b5-1 does define what insider trading is, fwiw
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/17/240.10b5-1🕸

I’ve got some material nonpublic information about my ass I can sell you if you act now

wait what are the non-securities contexts where insider trading applies?
― 龜, Thursday, January 5, 2023 10:16 PM (twenty-one seconds ago) bookmarkflaglink

i think theres been commodity market insider cases, and of course the famous nft case from the article, but what i was tryin to say is insider trading is almost exclusively prosecuted re securities not because theyre regulated in some special way but rather because insider trading happens with securities a lot

because the opportunity exists a lot, you could say insider trading is a fundamental truth about the structure of the securities market

CFTC also has a specific regulation on insider trading though.

insider trading is exclusively prosecuted re: securities because it is a crime that was created re: securities lol

theres an underlying opportunity for fraud that was criminalized

CFTC also has a specific regulation on insider trading though.

― longtime caller, first time listener (man alive), Thursday, January 5, 2023 10:26 PM (two minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

yeah because people are always doing it because its a nice crime

insider trading is pretty much based on caselaw, there is no statutory basis iirc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insider_trading#Court_decisions

― 龜, Thursday, January 5, 2023 7:18 PM (two hours ago)

Insider Trading Sanctions Act of 1984 - Amends the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to permit the Securities and Exchange Commission, whenever it appears that any person has traded in securities while in possession of material nonpublic information, to seek an order in a district court action requiring the violator, or anyone who aided and abetted the violation, to pay a civil penalty of up to three times the profit gained or loss avoided as a result of the unlawful transaction.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/98th-congress/house-bill/559

…and?