SIGN IN

Forgot Your Password?


Incorrect login or password

SIGN UP



Existing user?

The Parent Child Relationship


It is fathers day today. And I thought I’d write a bit about something that is really bothering me. I’ve come to terms with a lot of what is going on in the US federal government and our political system. I see it as a natural swinging of the pendulum. Many on the right think we went too far left under Obama. Many on the left think we have gone too far right under Trump. In time, Trump will be history and we will undo all of this nonsense he is putting in place. So is the way of politics and government and every time something happens in DC that bugs me, I think “this too shall pass.” But, this policy of separating children from their parents at the border really bugs me. The NY Times has a good report up on their homepage right now about how we got to this place. The Federal Government has been debating this issue of separating children from their parents at the border as a deterrent for more than a decade. From that Times piece: Yet for George W. Bush and Barack Obama, the idea of crying children torn from their parents’ arms was simply too inhumane — and too politically perilous — to embrace as policy, and Mr. Trump, though he had made an immigration crackdown one of the central issues of his campaign, succumbed to the same reality, publicly dropping the idea after Mr. Kelly’s comments touched off a swift backlash. I understand the need and the desire to protect our borders and enforce our immigration system, even though I believe we are being way too restrictive in terms of who we let into our country right now. But the law is the law and until we have a new law, we need to enforce the existing law. I get that. But the children are not the ones making the decisions to violate the laws. And yet they are being punished just as much, possibly even more so, than their parents. Kelly says “The children will be taken care of — put into foster care or whatever” as if it is no big deal to forcibly separate a child from his or her parents. It is a big deal, a traumatic event with long-term implications for that child. Many of us in this community are parents who have cared for and nurtured our children, loved them, supported them, and made them feel safe. We know what that bond is between parent and child, and we know that ripping it apart is an awful horrible thing to do and that we should not be doing it. On this Fathers Day, let us all say to our government “no more.” We must end this immoral and unjustifiable policy and we must end it now. Ideally today. There is no better day, other than Mothers Day, to do that. https://avc.com/2018/06/the-parent-child-relationship/

Audio Of The Week: Ether’s Big Day


I wrote about Ether’s big day yesterday. In this podcast, Laura Shin and Coinbase’s Adam White, who runs the institutional business there, talk about the Ether news and Coinbase’s institutional business. It’s a quick 20min listen. https://avc.com/2018/06/audio-of-the-week-ethers-big-day/

Audio Of The Week: Ether’s Big Day1


I wrote about Ether’s big day yesterday. In this podcast, Laura Shin and Coinbase’s Adam White, who runs the institutional business there, talk about the Ether news and Coinbase’s institutional business. It’s a quick 20min listen. https://avc.com/2018/06/audio-of-the-week-ethers-big-day/

Ether Is Not A Security


Yesterday, a top official from the SEC said what many of us in crypto land had been wanting to hear from the SEC for the last year: According to Bloomberg: “Putting aside the fundraising that accompanied the creation of Ether, based on my understanding of the present state of Ether, the Ethereum network and its decentralized structure, current offers and sales of Ether are not securities transactions,” William Hinman, who heads the Securities and Exchange Commission’s division of corporation finance, said in remarks prepared for a Yahoo Finance conference in San Francisco. “And, as with Bitcoin, applying the disclosure regime of the federal securities laws to current transactions in Ether would seem to add little value.” For me, this is not about Ether, but about the fact that a token can be used to raise capital (the “fundraising that accompanied the creation of Ether”) and at some point no longer resemble a security in the eyes of the SEC. I particularly like this language that Hinman used in his remarks: But this also points the way to when a digital asset transaction may no longer represent a security offering. If the network on which the token or coin is to function is sufficiently decentralized – where purchasers would no longer reasonably expect a person or group to carry out essential managerial or entrepreneurial efforts – the assets may not represent an investment contract. Moreover, when the efforts of the third party are no longer a key factor for determining the enterprise’s success, material information asymmetries recede. As a network becomes truly decentralized, the ability to identify an issuer or promoter to make the requisite disclosures becomes difficult, and less meaningful. And this part: Over time, there may be other sufficiently decentralized networks and systems where regulating the tokens or coins that function on them as securities may not be required. That last point is super important because as my colleague Nick tweeted out last night, we don’t want Bitcoin and Ether to have the advantage of being the only tokens that are not deemed to be securities. We want a hyper-competitive market where the best protocols win on the merits, not because some regulator likes them better. This is a concern, and a reason why the SEC must now define a path for the development of new tokens, which may start out sponsor-controlled but become decentralized over time https://t.co/JKvMHUciCA — Nick Grossman (@nickgrossman) June 14, 2018 But all in all, it was a good speech and a good day for crypto. It is clear that the SEC is trying to define some clear lines in the sand under which the decentralized world we all want to see happen can happen. And they are also trying to make sure that bad actors can’t skirt securities laws by simply claiming they are doing a token offering. https://avc.com/2018/06/ether-is-not-a-security/

Ether Is Not A Security1


Yesterday, a top official from the SEC said what many of us in crypto land had been wanting to hear from the SEC for the last year: According to Bloomberg: “Putting aside the fundraising that accompanied the creation of Ether, based on my understanding of the present state of Ether, the Ethereum network and its decentralized structure, current offers and sales of Ether are not securities transactions,” William Hinman, who heads the Securities and Exchange Commission’s division of corporation finance, said in remarks prepared for a Yahoo Finance conference in San Francisco. “And, as with Bitcoin, applying the disclosure regime of the federal securities laws to current transactions in Ether would seem to add little value.” For me, this is not about Ether, but about the fact that a token can be used to raise capital (the “fundraising that accompanied the creation of Ether”) and at some point no longer resemble a security in the eyes of the SEC. I particularly like this language that Hinman used in his remarks: But this also points the way to when a digital asset transaction may no longer represent a security offering. If the network on which the token or coin is to function is sufficiently decentralized – where purchasers would no longer reasonably expect a person or group to carry out essential managerial or entrepreneurial efforts – the assets may not represent an investment contract. Moreover, when the efforts of the third party are no longer a key factor for determining the enterprise’s success, material information asymmetries recede. As a network becomes truly decentralized, the ability to identify an issuer or promoter to make the requisite disclosures becomes difficult, and less meaningful. And this part: Over time, there may be other sufficiently decentralized networks and systems where regulating the tokens or coins that function on them as securities may not be required. That last point is super important because as my colleague Nick tweeted out last night, we don’t want Bitcoin and Ether to have the advantage of being the only tokens that are not deemed to be securities. We want a hyper-competitive market where the best protocols win on the merits, not because some regulator likes them better. This is a concern, and a reason why the SEC must now define a path for the development of new tokens, which may start out sponsor-controlled but become decentralized over time https://t.co/JKvMHUciCA — Nick Grossman (@nickgrossman) June 14, 2018 But all in all, it was a good speech and a good day for crypto. It is clear that the SEC is trying to define some clear lines in the sand under which the decentralized world we all want to see happen can happen. And they are also trying to make sure that bad actors can’t skirt securities laws by simply claiming they are doing a token offering. https://avc.com/2018/06/ether-is-not-a-security/