In particular, it seems to me that Kraken is correct in its letter arguing that a token custodian doesn't take possession of crypto assets placed with it, and that this makes it a bailee rather than a debtor. docs.iiroc.ca/DisplayDocumen…
In response, JP reports, "The CSA has taken the old bitcoin maxim 'not your keys not your bitcoin' to heart," ruling based on that claims on crypto custodians are debt contracts, hence securities.
But this appeal to a Bitcoiner maxim is hardly "good legal sense." The legal definition of "ownership" is "the legal right to use, possess, and give away a thing." Clearly, by this definition, merely possessing keys that allow access to property isn't the same as "owning" it.
Suppose my neighbor agrees to let me store a bicycle in his shed, to which he owns the sole key. Do I still own the bicycle, or do I merely own an IOU from my neighbor? Must my neighbor report to Gary Gensler? And just when did Bitcoiners become legal authorities, anyway?
Less facetiously, do we really want to make it easy for an evidently power-hungry SEC to classify practically any intermediary that deals in tokens as a securities issuer?
Suppose I proposed an opposite rue from the CSA's, to wit, that _no_ tokens firms that deal in them will be considered securities or security dealers! That would be "elegant" as the CSA's solution and, IMHO, about as legally sound.
Well, many of you will say I'm crazy, and perhaps you'd be right. But I'm not sure that Canada's solution is ultimately better. If it's security regulators aren't too heavy-handed, it might be. But if they are, it could be the lesser evil.
Applied to the U.S., I think my crazy solution is far more likely to be the lesser evil, for given the opportunity to adopt Canada's alternative, I very much fear that Mr. Gensler might take advantage of it to cripple the crypto industry.
Having been among the critics of the controversial proposals Saule makes in "The People's Leger," I'm glad to be able to compliment her on this paper telling the story, in very great detail, of the OCC's also rather radical broadening of national banks' legal undertakings.
Through a series of revisions of its interpretation of "the business of banking," the OCC dramatically expanded the list of derivatives national banks could deal in, with each step serving as the basis for justifying yet another, and a sort-of positive feedback loop.
"Right now, I'm telling you about what Gadamer believes and thinks, but Gadamer himself says this is impossible." Call me unenlightened, but to my way of thinking this is reason enough to conclude that Gadamer isn't worth my time. 1/2
Either what he says about his thinking is true, in which case it is futile to try to understand him, much less to make use of his ideas; or it isn't, in which his opinions concerning the impossibility of arriving at any objectively "correct" understanding others' ideas) is false.
It was owing to this understanding that, back in the mid '80s, when the hermeneutics fad was going full-bore at GMU econ., where I was briefly employed, I called it "godam'ermeneutics" and would have nothing to do with it.
"Omarova immediately faced a flood of criticism from the banking industry, described as 'radical'." Omarova herself describes the proposals in her "The People's Ledger" so. And they are extremely radical in fact. So that's no "red herring." papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cf…
"Omarova has been primarily condemned for musing in an academic paper last year about how individual bank accounts at the Federal Reserve could replace private deposits." This, too, is disingenuous.
Although the Federal gov't didn't regulate banks then, state authorities certainly did: there was in fact no such animal as an "unregulated" antebellum state bank.
Banks established under so-called "free banking" laws were no exception: despite the name, such law always involved some very substantial regulations--many of which were detrimental to bank safety and soundness.
I hope saying so doesn't make me a sophist. But while I agree that many arguments against Minting the Coin are bad, and that a case for the gambit's legality, I don't think it politic for government officials to exploit legal loopholes this way. 1/n
Indeed, I think it so impolitic that I'm pretty sure that Treasury and Fed officials would oppose the plan, as they did in 2013. In fact the White house has already opposed it: businessinsider.com/white-house-sa…
It's for this reason, and not because I share his belief that many (most?) opponents of the coin gambit are ill-informed or arguing in bad faith, that I share Joe's opinion that the whole debate is a waste of time.
There's are many question-begging claims in this Time magazine article on CBDC by @DionRabouin, starting with its title's sensational suggestion that the digital yuan poses a threat to the U.S. dollar's global status: time.com/6084146/china-…
An earlier version's headline was even more over the top: "The U.S. Is Losing the Global Race to Decide the Future of Money--and It Could Doom the Almighty Dollar." What poppycock!
The digital RMB is a retail payments innovation--essentially, a substitute for ordinary retail bank deposits, paper notes, and coin. It's launch has ZERO bearing on the RMB's (or yuan's) attractiveness as either a reserve or an int'l invoicing currency. That's Z-E-R-O.