Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

That’s a generic legal dictionary. And it’s a definition of one word in a term of art.

(Digital) representation of value means something more specific in the context of securities law. Something that has intrinsic value but cannot be used as a medium of exchange, unit of account, or store of value is unlikely to be regulated as a security.



> unlikely

There's the thing though. The minute you get to the point where the law is ambiguous, you start seeing law enforcement using it as leverage to get what the want. If the bar is "can they convince a judge that this should count", then they an use it to screw someone over.

I'm in favor of strong limitations on the powers granted to government officials, because there ARE bad apples; and giving the good apples power means the bad apples can decide to ruin someone's life because they can.

But thank you. I very much appreciate you taking the time to put forth your thoughts / knowledge on the subject.


> The minute you get to the point where the law is ambiguous, you start seeing law enforcement using it as leverage to get what the want.

Regulations are rarely explicitly legislated because legislative bodies don't have the time or expertise to maintain the specifics of regulations. Of course, you always want there to be appropriate scoping, but some division of responsibility between the executive and legislative branches is necessary.

I think a good middle-ground here is the updated language from Wyden et al.. I'm not sure how much leverage they have, though -- (D)s won't defect over this issue and it's unclear whether people like Toomey could be brought on board. And if it's not going to flip votes, then changing the language isn't really worth the lift. I would guess the best way to get this change adapted would be to pressure Toomey to vote on infra but insist on this change -- a single additional (R) in the Senate would make this language change over night. But, again, I kind of doubt Toomey considers this a wedge issue.

> If the bar is "can they convince a judge that this should count", then they an use it to screw someone over. I'm in favor of strong limitations on the powers granted to government officials, because there ARE bad apples; and giving the good apples power means the bad apples can decide to ruin someone's life because they can.

It's not just a judge or a single official. The Secretary will create rules through the regular rule-making process. And then those rules might be challenged in court.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: