We don’t know all the facts yet. It is quite possible Robinhood was leaned on by the SEC, a banking partner, or one of many other regulators / regulated entities they are beholden to.
We’re seeing the limits of fintech vs crypto in real-time. Not your rails, not your stocks.
OK, here *may* be why Robinhood & other brokerages shut down trading.
Not because evil. Because they can't afford the cost!
Due to the volatility of these stocks, their partners now (understandably) want cash up front. No one wants to be holding the bag. finance.yahoo.com/video/heres-wh…
This is plausible to me & similar to the kinds of thing that happen in crypto when there is an unexpected surge in price.
If true, it's a supply chain issue due to slow settlement times. No one wants to take principal risk on a ton of highly volatile assets.
See statements below.
Robinhood seems to have run low on credit due to this insane surge, and would have needed to go long on $X00M worth of GME. Way too risky given guaranteed eventual drop. So they shut it down.
The settlement issue also illustrates the limits of fintech.
Fintech is a shiny (and useful) frontend on top of an antiquated backend. Crypto is the new backend.
With crypto, you can settle on-chain in minutes, in any country, for large amounts. Many settlement issues go away.
Customers expect fintech apps to be as “instant” as consumer internet, & companies work hard to make them feel like that.
But the lowest level APIs are still things like SFTP for ACH. And don’t work under unexpected load. Seems like what happened here. news.ycombinator.com/item?id=150954…
Confirmed. Robinhood (& other brokerages) had a cash crunch due to the details of how settlement works. They had to sell equity & dip into their own pockets to re-enable trading.
This is a technology issue which we can solve by legalizing security tokens. archive.is/n83fV
Yes, but under pressure by regulators/customers, and boxed in by laws/NDAs, @vladtenev may not have been *able* to say the SEC and/or DTC made them shut down trading.
Other brokerages also shut down but as the consumer brand RH got the blame. They also had to raise $1B in a day.
Today showed us that the SEC has had it wrong. The problem isn’t that some cryptos may be securities. The problem is that all securities aren’t yet cryptos.
Now is the time to draft a bill that legalizes security tokens.
If all securities were represented on-chain:
- all users have self-custody of certificates
- brokerages can’t stop you from trading
- trading runs 24/7
- and settlement happens in minutes, not days
Basically, root cause is the antiquated financial backend. On-chain fixes this.
The stockchain
What we just observed was a technology problem that is being cast as a human problem. It was basically a Slashdotting of the legacy financial system, an unexpected workload that it isn’t prepared to handle. Putting stocks on chain really does fix this.
I expect a pseudonymous founder to set up a contract-for-difference engine in some country. Maybe legal in some places, do your own diligence!
But that would allow *uncensorable* on-chain exposure to the price of every stock.
Basically, the way MakerDAO works is by putting the exchange rate of ETH/USD on chain. Through some transformations, that gets you a USD stablecoin called DAI.
But the same approach can be used to put ETH/GME, ETH/TESLA, ETH/ANYSTOCK on chain.
☀️ The city of Miami just posted the #Bitcoin whitepaper on their website! This is a simple but powerful move that any jurisdiction can make to show they are in favor of technological progress. Who will follow Miami's example?
Here is Representative @PatrickMcHenry of the House Financial Services Committee standing up for open source innovation in finance by posting the Bitcoin whitepaper!
The long-term consequence is the end of the 20th century regulatory state.
The SEC is set up to go after Goldman, not 1M retail investors. The FDA was built to regulate Merck, not 1M people with personal genomes. And the FAA is meant to leash Boeing, not 1M drone hobbyists. 🧵
For the SEC to go after all the countless sympathetic individuals on Reddit who profited off the back of a giant fund isn’t just logistically difficult.
It’s *reputationally* difficult.
It’s like the RIAA suing its own customers. You are pursuing the little guy...why exactly?
Lyn is very smart — but Ethereum really isn’t that early in development anymore. Just from a numbers standpoint, it’s a $100B+ platform hosting multiple billion dollar projects. See defipulse.com.
That doesn’t begin to touch the tech innovation, which is substantial.
I don’t think it’s persuasive to say “Ethereum is still rapidly innovating therefore it’s not worth $100B+”.
Actually, for a platform worth $100B+ to still be rapidly innovating is a very positive signal. Excessive risk aversion is the ultimate risk. businessinsider.com/amazons-jeff-b…
Perhaps the most important difference between a tech investor and a macro investor (like @LynAldenContact) is that Lyn explicitly says she wants to invest in “finished products”.
The human rights argument for crypto as a balance against centralized power of all kinds, from nation states to corporations, is more obvious every day.
People tried popularizing decentralized systems like Tor without the economic component. It didn’t fully work, because these systems are tricky to build and maintain.
But digital assets now provide an offsetting term that more than compensates for the technical complexity.
Crypto allows open source developers to finally capture some of the value they create. They can choose how much.
But it’s an important and general tool to address the funding gaps that @nayafia talked about in her recent book.