Jump to content


Bronze Member
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by NightJanitor

  1. I hesitated on including those lines about the Ethereum Foundation "supporting its own ecosystem" because I anticipated that you'd focus on it and make exactly that point, but I included them, anyway, because Ethereum Foundation is another case - dissimilar in its beginnings, in my view (I think they *did* knowingly break some *established* rules), but I wanted, anyway, to point out that they are, now, however many years and years later, both in a similar situation, but treatment has been very, very different. We agree, anyway, on that last point, to some extent - and that is at least some small progress. You'll get very little disagreement from me that this space is filled, nearly to the brim, with bad actors - but there are a handful who aren't - and we also agree that SEC has done a poor job of communication and rule-making, so much so, in fact, that they were considering, and this is the nicest way I can spin it, deputizing and sanctioning one company in the space to form a self-regulation organization which would allow that company, officially, to become the "beat cop" (I'll spare you my lectures about how the US Gov bureaucracy has a bad habit of outsourcing its own responsibilities). There are a variety of ways to interpret those actions - ask 10 lawyers and you'll probably get "10 different answers" - ranging from those with operative words like "incompetence" or "corruption" to a more charitable "failure to prioritize." (Whether a sort of after-action (or after looong in-action) report will be necessary is beyond the scope of this note...) I agree with your read of the impetus behind their target selection, but I am reminded of Admiral McRaven's well-received and highly-lauded speech to a class at the Naval Academy telling *everyone* how disappointed he was concerning "their" bad behavior and how he would not tolerate it and how he punished everyone & over-reacted. And I also remember it turning out that the incident which prompted his speech was orchestrated by a bad actor - turning out, itself, to be - what's the right word - fraudulent? - and that it's a good thing for him that he didn't just select some random cadet to scapegoat over the matter, to "set an example," because then he'd have looked like considerably more of a capricious, bureaucratic jerk who was only out to protect himself and his institution - with absolutely zero thoughts (or perhaps a good, civilian understanding) of how real justice ought actually "be done." Punishing everyone - or "making an example out of a good actor, just to scare the bad actors" - is not leadership. And it's certainly not justice, either. Not in my book, anyway. We don't disagree on wanting folks to "behave" - I suspect, however, that both your and my experiences (or conclusions drawn from them) may be a different when considering "methods" to achieve such ends. Once you've been the good kid punished for someone else's sins... So, I think that's, roundaboutly, and in story form, something Gensler - and SEC as institution - ought to consider. I have some ideas in that direction - and so do others, who are officially involved, including some SEC Commisioners - but I will just ask one leading/indirect question and then let you consider it. Can the Ethereum Foundation do an IPO? I think the answer, there, is probably no, because they chose a structure that would largely shield them from the rules which I think they probably *did* know they were breaking and which were *well-established*. But that's not true for, well, there are others in the space who have, as you mentioned, been very careful to be compliant and have chosen a structure which, from the beginning, they knew probably put them at risk of possibly becoming a target - but they did that, I think, knowingly - because their intentions were honest and they were trying their best to navigate a grey area, which, now, everyone seems to at least be willing to admit was, indeed, a grey area and that blockchain tech is novel, holds a tremendous amount of promise, and that specific rules (or Safe Harbors or some other regulatory mechanism) are genuinely needed... I'll leave it there, for now. ETA: Now that I think about it for another moment, no sort of "blue sky" / "you're compliant now" (whatever that means, under this SEC regime) benefits accrued to Coinbase, after their own IPO - they're *still* in limbo from the SEC... so, maybe Commissioner Pierce is ahead of me on that one and has something closer to "the right idea," whether it's safe harbors or even another agency or some other mechanism - or - God forbid - they have to buckle down and actually publish RULES. We'll see...
  2. Keep clarifying, because I was in the other window digging up 3 years worth of Bitcoin commercials that have aired all over TV and the internet, proclaiming it the "new gold" and a "store of value"; I think you may still be just a little bit confused re: who has marketed what and how... Anyway, that's the problem with all of these analogies and similes - they only go so far. What was it that the SEC got caught editing out of one of the documents they were forced to turn over? "Ask 10 different securities lawyers and you'll get 10 different answers." No wonder they fought showing that - it was the truth.
  3. You're still not being very clear in your distinction between the two. Ripplenet is a product of Ripple (the company) which *can* use XRP (and the fully functional, as you admit, XRP ledger) to do global settlement. Ripple (the company) owns it - but they don't own or control the XRP Ledger. Are you trying to tell me the Ethereum Foundation doesn't support its own ecosystem? They have a conference for people developing using Ether like once a week. (They invest in many of same.) If you want to argue utility and availablity of the XRP Ledger to be used by anyone, there are about 20,000 people who'd just love to have Mr. Deaton represent their interests in this case - since XRP holders and XRPL users aren't represented, even though their asset and the network they use is part of what the SEC is attacking, here. (The 20,000 people figure is only those who have *signed up* with Mr. Deaton - who knows how many more people or companies actually use XRPL.) For some odd reason, the SEC has been fighting that tooth and nail, though - and claiming XRPL has "no utility" - meanwhile, the Judge has had to spend God-only-knows how much money upgrading her phone system so that thousands of people (99.99% of whom aren't working at Ripple) can call in and listen to every SEC v Ripple call... Curious, isn't it?
  4. That's not what they said to Gasparino. They said "not built out yet" - sorry, it was built and functional, as you admit. Taking your stance to the absurd extreme, the only way anyone escapes arbitrary/capricious SEC enforcement and is allowed to continue to work on anything they invent is to pull a Satoshi and abandon your project and cuckoo-bird it... Judge Netburn picked up on this very "neverending litigation" aspect in the last call, when the SEC tried it, on her... That's the heart of the anti-competitive/innovation-crushing argument against SEC's refusals to provide crypto clarity - and yet another point for the genius of Satoshi in seeing exactly what government bureaucracy would try to do, here... But BTC is "built-out"? I dunno, I seem to remember a lot of the early folks - just not the "inventor" - continuing to make changes to it - often very contentious ones, since there wasn't a mechanism built into it to make that easier. And some of the people still involved in developing it are working on even more changes, right now - so... when is BTC "built out"? (Do we need Daddy Gensler or Aunt Liz to decide for us?) Same exact Q for any other project. Ergo, where's the rules - and go away with this "check with us before you go take the car, even though you're an adult, and it's yours, and this is America"... We'll see, but... the SEC argument does not fly. (It's funny that a cuckoo-bird saw it coming!)
  5. He's a journo - he's just reporting what they said. But he can't possibly, actually believe it. There's a difference. Hope he keeps digging... there's journalistic gold in this story. He might as well write himself into the eventual film!
  6. The logic being that if the code has a mechanism for being changed/updated, then it's "not built out?" So Ethereum has never been updated - and isn't banking on switching away from PoW and to another consensus/validation mechanism, in 2-3 months? Good to know. This is the same stupid "logic" that SEC employed in its privilege motion - "well, we might, at some point in the future, bring some sort of action against *anyone* in crypto, so *all* documents are always "investigational"... It's like saying "your totally functional iPhone has a SD card slot where you can add more memory in the future" or "your desktop has extra slots where you can add additional components or upgrade the components already in it, as new technology develops" - and then suing the hardware companies because the thing is "not built out, yet." To jump to the network level, it's like saying Verizon can't upgrade their existing 4G network to 5G or else they'll open themselves up to lawsuits. That's ridiculous... Gasparino can't possibly buy that.
  7. I think I'm - and so are most other people - quite tired of having to try to read between the lines of whatever bullshit someone from the SEC spouts in order to figure out what the actual rules - which don't seem to exist - actually are... (If I thought Gary'd answer anything by saying "we make it up as we go along, Senator" I'd have paid more attention.)
  8. I don't understand your question. Of course much of it is pre-written. That's why you see the Senators *reading* most of their questions. I was merely mentioning, for no reason, that there is a 7-day window now open in which Senators have a right to submit written questions to Chair Gensler to which he must respond (in writing - and with his oath still applying)... Think of them like interrogatories in a lawsuit, if you wish. It's sort of a similar dynamic - but Senators can ask *anything*. Take Senator Warren, for example. Of course she wants to hit the sort of consumer-brokerage questions, in public hear - that's her thing - but her written questions, or those of her staff, are probably super-wonky and highly technical/specific. All of the other Senators have the opportunity - a sort of 7-day window, if you like - to do the same. That's all I meant.
  9. Senators have 7 days in which to submit written questions which require answers (also in writing). That's what you call "optionality." Maybe some very hard Q's get asked and maybe they don't. "We'll see..."
  10. Gensler's written testimony for tomorrow's Senate Banking Committee hearing ("Crypto Asset Markets" on pgs 5-6): https://www.banking.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Gensler Testimony 9-14-21.pdf He's still doing the "come in and talk to us" (to get sued) / "I'm tech-neutral" bit. (I hope that all the lobbyists who woke up during the infra bill fiasco are awake!)
  11. Banksy will be all over that... might even bring his own game dynamics.
  12. What's the rush? (If there is one, lmk; I do my *best* work on Labor Day, naturally - but, you know, have to prioritize - only ~24 hours in a day, some people say.) (The real question is what trades they may've made, engineering-wise, in order to ..."achieve?"... uhm, well, "get" that speed is maybe better - and at what cost(s)?)
  13. I think that's an interesting tangent - maybe even an arc tangent. But I'm kind of a philosophy of language nerd, so... Off the top of my head, I think it's two(?) major factors: 1) Ignorance of the real, historical meanings of "terms of art." 2) I think there are elements of the space (what older/more experienced folks would call "bad actors") who are, for whatever reason, engaged, intentionally, in regulatory arbitrage and so they bullshit their way through, intentionally. 3) Hmmmm..... is there a 3? Well, yeah, there is: The lack of regulatory clarity makes the clash/confusion between reasons 1 and 2 very difficult for most people to pick apart and differentiate between. (Can you think of any more?) That brings to mind that there may be something like a 3a) "Regulatory uncertainty incentivizing unclear language / invention or application of novel or incorrect terminology in order not to attract attention, even when a good actor and/or when the technology and/or asset/instrument is truly novel (and so old/new terms are applied/used/abused/confused/invented/introduced/tested-for-fit, as language around space develops)." What'd I miss? I'm sure there are other factors... reg uncertainty / number of jurisdictions involved / translations / legitimate linguistic differences / cultural differences / etc - but I'm looking more for sort of the incentives/drivers.
  14. I prefer the Frank and Nancy version, but, you know, hard to measure up. Still, nice & good taste in songs. Since she's keeping the oldies alive - and making the kids do their homework on these things - think she'll be buying any ETH Classic? Might learn something real important, on that one! (Something to which ETH is not immune.)
  15. You obviously don't realize it, but you sound like the kind of guy who keeps those 1-800-inventor infomercial companies in business - or the bulk of patent lawyer clients with guys who've modified something in their shop that they couldn't buy at the hardware store and it works great and everyone would love it, but if I tell anyone, oh, Lord, why did you give me such a burden?! The Screw-N-Ator 5000 Combination Torque Wrench + Gauge + Level + Stud Finder (w/optional nail gun attach) is keeping me up at night, Lord. Look... If you can't do it on your own - and you know it - (and you'd like to see other people enjoy it) - might as well just spill it - (and If not, don't). Best I can advise you...
  16. I was expecting a different type of spoon - with a caption like: "What in the hell do you mean there's a nickel fee for delivering a dime bag?! Gas prices!? What in the hell are you driving?" (She's actually a lovely and friendly person - just do NOT get her mad!)
  17. If there's a fee for dialing in, I'll just talk to the operator after the call and have the phone company reverse the charges. In fact, that's exactly what I'd tell the Judge that she ought to do in this case. (All the corruption/scienter is at SEC!)
  18. Thanks for the math lesson; I'll rephrase my point: If one wants to reduce the required weight of a boat anchor, making the boat even heavier by adding structure ain't it. * (Also, I don't see the anti-spam mechanisms as "problems" - they're adjustable, already - as are the reserve amounts...) *I coulda gone submarine/ballast, or hot-air-ballon/sandbags or something... but... it's late... and the coffee is a bit cold. (Nobody warned me that coffee gets cold over time! This is me *not* writing an email to complain to... Clausius? Who?) ETA: [Kinda, what I think they've invented here, is the on-ledger version of sidechains... Sidechains are sort of "ledger-lite" - in a way - and this "lite account" thing seems to put some of that functionality/flexibility/customizability on-ledger.]
  19. Think sidechains can/wil fix a lot of this... Be fun to be able to activate an XRP account with a non-xrp asset, in that way. (There are probably also interesting ways that webmon could be utilized to accomplish something similar, in the future...) Anyway, would rather see things that support/attract developers than feature proposals that are inspired by reducing the volume of complaint emails from people who didn't read a word of documentation and then blame someone else for their own issue when they run into a tiny (and entirely avoidable) problem. Catering to the LCD like that will wind us up with a McDonald's coffee-cup of a ledger, full of warnings that coffee may be hot, shouldn't be poured on one's head, et cetera - ad infinitum. Definitely good intentions, but a little patience might pay off, even more, in this instance... Ohwell, we'll see.
  20. Looks like it does the opposite of what it's called. Having a hard time figuring out what problem it's supposed to solve, exactly, for which there aren't other mechanisms already in place / less space, if it's just an end-run around account reserve. Kind of creates a class structure, as well - maybe the lower account reserve accounts should pay higher tx fees? The lower account reserve seems to be a disqualifying factor for trustlines, so, why not juggle all kinds of other social engineering variables if gonna go down that road? (I wouldn't go down that road.) The doling out of even 1 XRP to whomever opens a non-custodial account using... whatever... and then trying to keep some right to it - or right to reclaim it, under whatever conditions - also seems... off... in several ways... and cascades into more problems than I, personally, think it could ever solve (and I'm still not sure what it's trying to solve). Probably lots of good intentions, but seems like it's accompanied by a ton of unintended consequences which maybe aren't that obvious... yet. (A Björk line comes to mind: "I thought I could organize freedom / How Scandinavian of me.")
  21. Well, I kinda thought that too - but, as usual, it's sort of "~99% dirt, 1% gold" - and I'm getting old for mining work. Honestly, I just dismissed the thread out of hand, initially, because it was limited to "speed" - and I was instantly like "wooo, anyone who thinks that's the only factor (or the only factor that counts) is looking through a very small lens." (But the thread turned out sort of alright, from a high level view - I appreciated Harpool popping in to do teacher bit.)
  22. One of the interesting things about XRP is that a tiny % of the asset is burned when it's sort of ordered to get up and transport itself somewhere and do something. Uses its own energy, let's say - and that "energy" does NOT accrue to "third parties" - whether or not they're running a validator that is processing tx's and advancing XRPL's state (or keeping history). Nobody makes anything off of "relaying any commands" or "bouncing signals around" the network for any XRP (or the XRPL) to do something, either (that stuff is all ancillary / can happen elsewhere). It's a small point - escapes most people. May be nothing. May be something. Guess we'll see if it matters, in time... (I skip impromptu lecture about relationship btwn finitude/infinitude, with reference to scale and/or granularity - despite urge to work in a "There's Plenty Of Room At The Bottom" (or top!) reference that Caltech would catch!)
  23. Didn't watch that. Did watch this.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.