Yes, very happy to be done with this.
Yes. Again, what is not clear is that bitcoin does not fall under SEC regulation. You've said nothing to prove that whatsoever.
No, it is very clear that Bitcoin itself does not currently fall under the SEC or else they would be regulating it. Please show me evidence stating that is is currently regulated by the SEC. I can't show you a regulation that does not exist. But I can tell you that if the regulation does not exist, it cannot be applied. Regulations must exist to be applied. If you can show me the regulation, I will concede.
Also, it's clear that the general operations of a Bitcoin exchange don't fall under the SEC because the SEC is currently not regulating Bitcoin exchanges as they are MSBs. So, the SEC could not prosecute an exchange for front-running or insider trading. If you think they could, please provide evidence showing me A) their current power to regulate Bitcoin exchange operations and B) the fact that that don't allow this specific activity. These two things must be in place BEFORE they can regulate these types of things.
What is not clear? Are you thinking that the SEC is secretly regulating Bitcoin but they haven't told anyone?
"No, it is very clear that Bitcoin itself does not currently fall under the SEC or else they would be regulating it." That is a joke. The question is not
whether or not the SEC has taken an action. The question is
whether or not SEC regulations can be applied.
"I can't show you a regulation that does not exist. But I can tell you that if the regulation does not exist, it cannot be applied." This suggests that SEC regulations do not exist. That is absurd. What I am asking you to do is
show me statutory language that implies that bitcoins are not subject to SEC regulation. That entails a legal analysis of the pertinent regs regarding, for instance, insider trading and front running, that exhibits why bitcoin is exempt from such regulation.
Instead, you keep insisting that the SEC has to come out and say, "here, this applies to bitcoin." That's not how the law works. If there are laws on the books that can be applied, they are already on the books, after all. I can't be bothered to do such an analysis. All I am saying is your position is pure conjecture without it.
Enforcement agencies, not courts, decide when and how to apply regulations. Courts decide whether they acted legally after the fact.
Yes, but they must first have a basis to apply the regulations. The SEC cannot jump into a fray that is outside of their realm initially and then let courts decide if they can be there. It cannot prosecute a potato case based on the fact that it is a potato alone. It must be within it's realm of regulation. Then the court can decide if the law is being applied correctly.
You are implying that there is no basis to apply regulations. You have, however, done nothing to prove this. This involves actually reading the law. You are simply saying, "the SEC does not regulate bitcoin. Therefore it cannot regulate bitcoin." If prosecutors view laws regarding fraudulent trading activities as belonging within the purview of SEC regulations, then yes, they can certainly prosecute on that basis.
What basis do you have to say "arbitrarily"? You have not even cited any law! What legal basis do you have to say that SEC regulations are not applicable? Hint: None so far. This is just conjecture on your part -- you are simply appealing to authority by attempting to state your opinion as fact.
I cannot cite a law that doesn't exist. Can you have me prosecuted for a law that doesn't exist? No, you cannot.
Bitcoin exchanges fall under FINCEN regulation for the purpose of transmitting and converting money. That is all. This does not mean that any and all actions taken by bitcoin exchanges are regulated and enforced by FINCEN. As you indicated earlier, a bitcoin exchange that engages in other types of fraud may be dealing with the DOJ, for instance.
True, as I have said. But then we are not talking about securities law. We are talking about criminal fraud or something else. FINCEN or the DOJ can prosecute but they would not be using securities law. How is this hard to understand? I'm not sure why you keeping bringing securities law into this.
I never asked you to cite a law that doesn't exist. I asked you to prove that SEC regulations don't apply. That entails reading the regulations pertinent to insider trading and front running and citing language that implies that bitcoin is not subject to those regulations. Absent language explicitly omitting assets that are arguably analogous to bitcoin, SEC regulators may interpret given regs as applicable. Since you stated you are knowledgeable about this aspect of the law, it seems that this should be fairly trivial for you. If the assets under regulation are that explicit, what are they, and can you cite the statute for reference?
Securities law is relevant because it has historically encompassed these very issues of insider trading, front running and other forms of market manipulation.
When regulation becomes more clear in the future, do you think such activities carried about by exchanges will be explicitly legal? If not, why do you assume they are implicitly legal?
