SEC charges Etherdelta with operating an unregistered exchange

[gentlemand]

https://twitter.com/coindesk/status/1060551309613547522#

https://www.sec.gov/litigation/admin/2018/34-84553.pdf

Does this mean the idea of a decentralised exchange is toast or that they're not doing it right? I'm going for the latter. I don't see how anything hosted on a website will qualify. Until these things are entirely on chain themselves they're neither one nor t'other.

[encycrypto]

Seems like BarterDEX (powered by Komodo) and IDEX are going to be the next victims of SEC.

[squatter]

Does this mean the idea of a decentralised exchange is toast or that they're not doing it right? I'm going for the latter. I don't see how anything hosted on a website will qualify. Until these things are entirely on chain themselves they're neither one nor t'other.

The idea isn't toast, but it seems like we're pretty far from the end goal, especially for anything not operable with Ethereum. There are definitely technologies in the works that could do it.

I think the website part is possible now -- Swarm, InterPlanetary File System, Safenet/Maidsafe or some combination of them should be able to create a redundant, decentralized website. Whether a complex smart contract like a DEX will work with those platforms yet is another question. In the case of Maidsafe, I think not. The biggest problem is figuring out real-time order books and order matching. All the current exchanges use local servers and off-chain order books.

[Pab]

EtherDelta owner will pay and back to work after making some changes
It could be not only decentralized exchanges
Reason is that us citizens can trade securities
SEC wrote that there is at least one security on EtherDelta didnt say what one
It looks like some big guys wants to own crypto trading by creating monopol
SEC is serving them
Now question is can SEC harm exchanges out of USA
I am afraid yes because of USA FACTA law
That is maybe reason why Bittrex has developed Bittrex International

[Slow death]

I can not understand this:

The regulator notes that most of the orders were executed after the DAO report that SEC had released in June 2017. Under the current law, EtherDelta was obliged to register in U.S. or to apply for an exemption; however, the SEC notes that the platform failed to do so.

if they were not able to register then why are they targets the SEC? Another question I have is that, the EtherDelta does not have a lawyer to give them legal advice? as EtherDelta may not know that they would be punished with the SEC. Is the knowledge of many people that when dealing with businesses like exchange, banks ... regulators are very hard on this matter

Seems like BarterDEX (powered by Komodo) and IDEX are going to be the next victims of SEC.

Better they have a good lawyer who gives them proper legal advice

[figmentofmyass]

I can not understand this:

The regulator notes that most of the orders were executed after the DAO report that SEC had released in June 2017. Under the current law, EtherDelta was obliged to register in U.S. or to apply for an exemption; however, the SEC notes that the platform failed to do so.

if they were not able to register then why are they targets the SEC?

they were able, and they were required to register, but they didn't. i'm not sure what registration as a national securities exchange entails exactly beside regular financial disclosures. it looks like no crypto exchange has registered or qualified for an exemption: https://www.sec.gov/fast-answers/divisionsmarketregmrexchangesshtml.html

what surprises me is the SEC has gone after DEX platforms, but not regular exchanges like bittrex or binance.

Another question I have is that, the EtherDelta does not have a lawyer to give them legal advice? as EtherDelta may not know that they would be punished with the SEC.

i bet they had a lawyer. i'll bet many lawyers took the position that since trades were executed through a decentralized smart contract, that this absolved them of registration. since there is no established precedent on the matter, some probably opted to play with fire. it was a brazen move, and i'll bet lots of exchange owners are sweating right now over the etherdelta case.

[gentlemand]

Another question I have is that, the EtherDelta does not have a lawyer to give them legal advice? as EtherDelta may not know that they would be punished with the SEC.

i bet they had a lawyer. i'll bet many lawyers took the position that since trades were executed through a decentralized smart contract, that this absolved them of registration. since there is no established precedent on the matter, some probably opted to play with fire. it was a brazen move, and i'll bet lots of exchange owners are sweating right now over the etherdelta case.

I bet they didn't. I bet they thought in theory they were fine whereas any lawyer, or even any mong like me, could've immediately told them that the real law don't give a shit about your smart contract. It's irrelevant tinsel.

Yet another example of the unworldliness of crypto operators. It doesn't matter whether they believe laws don't apply to them, the law will not agree.