Public companies, private markets, crypto offerings and you, Aug. 28–Sept. 4
Published
4 Monaten ago
on
By
Editor’s note
It is a cruel twist of fate that during the first hiatus week in Law Decoded’s existence, the SEC put out long-awaited updates to accredited investor qualifications. Upon reading the news, your faithful and ever-vigilant policy editor put down his phone and cast a wistful eye upon the sun’s reflection dancing in the midground of the Atlantic Ocean. Bracing himself with a deep quaff of Corona, he thought ‘Not today.’ Before the sorrow of not being the one to bring the news to you could overwhelm him, he grabbed a battered borrowed surfboard and made for the waves.
Never one to dwell on the past, I will keep most of this week’s newsletter focused on more recent events. In our continuing mission to boldly present you with only the freshest of takes etc. Last week’s accredited investor shift is too fascinating to pass up, but it ties in with some broader trends about the barrier between public and private markets.
This week has highlighted U.S. federal protection of publicly traded companies, while also amplifying discussion of what exactly public trading should and should not do. It’s an interesting debate in which crypto is a powerful case study. Aside from being a theoretical new monetary system, cryptocurrencies have a reputation for being among the most volatile investments accessible to the general public. In bringing them to heel, the SEC hopes to at least weed out overt frauds and scams.
The flip side is that even without the example of crypto many people criticize the SEC for curating walled gardens of private investment for rich insiders. Crypto evangelists harp on about crypto breaching these walls. They do indeed have a point. But so too does the SEC.
Accreditation rules the nation
Regarding the SEC’s announcement, the basic function of the commission for its nearly 90-year history has been to protect investors, full stop. A derived function is pruned investment markets are more attractive to investors. While everybody acknowledges that an overbearing regulator is bad for business, the commission has played a critical role in seeing the U.S.’s investment markets become the envy of the world since its Great Depression-era origins — though huge forces like the Second World War, decolonization and the collapse of old-world empires, Communism and even American innovation helped out over the years.
The accredited investor classification comes from Reg. D, an exemption to public filing that says some people don’t need as much protection. It dates to the Reagan years, though updates in the 2000s were a big part of ushering in the era of the “unicorn,” a company with a valuation of over $1 billion before its IPO — which doesn’t really happen without private investment. At the same time, recent years have seen private investment under Reg. D consistently dwarf IPO investment, which suggests that the rich can just get richer on the ripest returns while public investors are stuck waiting for companies who are in some sense already past their prime.
Largely due to high-profile attacks on crypto offerings using Reg. D in the U.S. (especially Telegram), 2020 has seen shifts to other exemptions that allow retail investors but have lower caps on how much total money can come in. The new rules are promising in that they open new avenues for people to demonstrate investment savvy rather than just resources to spare as a way of getting accreditation. But then again, will that just incentivize companies to stay private longer?
Remaining private saves firms from expensive disclosures and lets owners keep their power consolidated. But tilting the table further in favor of private equities runs the risk of cutting public markets off from new blood.
FBI raids teenager’s home in Bitcoin giveaway Twitter hack investigation
The FBI searched the home of a 16-year-old in Massachusetts, who they claim may have masterminded July’s twitter hack alongside Graham Ivan Clark.
Clark is standing trial in Florida, where he faces charges that could add up to centuries behind bars. It seems the second mastermind evaded authorities for a month longer thanks to encrypted messaging services Signal and Wire, which should do a lot to advertise for those services.
While this unnamed second mastermind has yet to face charges, a troubling component of the case is that it also seems like a really good advertisement for being a publicly traded company in the U.S. Very few murders see manhunts as far-reaching and efficient as this theft of some $117,000 at the expense of TWTR’s reputation.
On the other hand, murder is generally a state crime that doesn’t invoke federal investigation in the same way as fraud committed across state lines. Given Twitter’s role in modern political discourse, the hack was especially scary because it brought out honest fears that more malicious hackers could have used the same exploit to start wars, 280 characters at a time.
In defense of Tesla
In a case of a stitch in time saving nine, the FBI busted a Bitcoin ransomware attack aimed at Tesla.
Now-jailed Russian banker Pavel Kriuchkov allegedly spent a month in the U.S. trying to recruit a Tesla employee into a ransomware scheme that authorities say was aiming at extorting $4 million from the company.
Unlike the Twitter case, which saw the attackers hoodwink an unwitting employee into turning over critical access to accounts, a loyal Tesla employee flagged Kriuckhov to the company, which in turn called on the FBI. The details of the case remain hazy. The original case against Kriuchkov doesn’t even name Tesla; CEO Elon Musk had to do that.
Meanwhile, TSLA stock is seeing a plummet on the last few days, in step with the broader tech market.
Further reads
Jim Harper of the American Enterprise calls on Zcash’s grant committee to put more resources into philanthropic applications of its privacy technology.
The Center for Strategic and International Studies looks at what China stands to gain from a digital yuan.
Leaders at Coin Center argue that regulators are unlikely to demand that crypto exchanges restrict services to approved wallet addresses. For now.
New York authorizes first Yen stablecoin operator in the US
Published
1 Stunde ago
on
Dezember 29, 2020
By
New York has given the first authorization to a stablecoin backed by the Japanese Yen to operate in the U.S.
Per a Dec. 29 announcement, the New York Department of Financial Services has granted Japanese firm GMO-Z.com a charter to handle U.S.D. and Yen-backed stablecoins in New York.
Given New York’s status as a global center, the NYDFS is the most prominent state financial regulator in the U.S. It is also one of the most aggressive. A pass to operate in New York often opens up the rest of the country.
GMO’s charter is as a limited liability trust company rather than a full bank, the principle difference being in authorization to handle deposits. While a stablecoin operator typically needs the ability to hold reserves of the pegged asset, GMO’s charter limits its rights to hold other kinds of deposits not central to its ability “to issue, administer, and redeem” its stablecoins.
The right to issue such non-depository charters has been a bone of contention between state regulators like the NYDFS and national banking regulators in the U.S.
GMO president and CEO Ken Nakamura said: “We’re breaking ground with our move to issue the first regulated JPY-pegged stablecoin, which many see as a safe haven asset.”
The NYDFS recently made changes to its famous BitLicense, including a conditional format that buddies up newly licensed firms with existing licensees. The first conditional BitLicense went to PayPal, facilitating the launch of its new crypto services earlier this fall with the help of longstanding licensee Paxos.
India ponders Bitcoin tax law to target $5B market
Published
7 Stunden ago
on
Dezember 29, 2020
By
India’s finance ministry has called for the enactment of Bitcoin (BTC) tax laws in the country. According to the Times of India, the ministry’s Central Economic Intelligence Bureau, or CEIB, recently submitted a draft document that proposes levying an 18% goods and services tax on Bitcoin trading.
CEIB figures put the estimated Bitcoin transaction volume in India at over $5.4 billion. Thus, the proposed 18% tax could see the government earning about $970 million from crypto taxation.
As part of the proposed plan, the CEIB is pushing for virtual currencies to be classified as “intangible assets” to fall under the purview of GST with taxes levied on the profits made from trading.
Reacting to the news, Tanvi Ratna, CEO of Indian crypto policy advisory firm Policy 4.0, tweeted:
“Sadly, this does not necessarily imply that crypto will be legal. Under Indian law, illegal income is also taxable & evading its tax counts as criminal activity.”
Indeed, in 2011, India’s finance ministry provided clarification that tax evasion on illegal sources of income was a criminal offense. At the time, the government was reportedly moving toward reclassifying all forms of tax evasion as criminal offenses.
Apart from the Supreme Court reversing the Reserve Bank of India’s ban against banks servicing crypto exchanges back in March, not much has happened by way of cryptocurrency regulations in the country.
The lack of regulatory clarity is reportedly preventing greater investor involvement in the industry. However, India’s crypto peer-to-peer trading market continued to grow in 2020.
Can blockchain technology make online voting reliable?
Published
21 Stunden ago
on
Dezember 28, 2020
By
The United States Presidential elections on Nov. 3 were contentious to begin with, but unfounded and inaccurate accusations of electoral fraud from the defeated President Trump cast a pall over the whole procedure. Daniel Hardman, chief architect and chief information security officer at self-sovereign identity solution Evernym, thinks blockchain might help voting in general going forward.
“Basically, blockchain can provide a way for voters to be reliably and securely registered to vote, and then when votes are cast, blockchain can be a mechanism for proving that somebody has the right to vote, based on their prior registration,” Hardman told Cointelegraph. “Blockchain can provide some features that would help with auditing a vote in an election,” he added.
Republicans have been hesitant to accept a Biden win, despite the electoral college verifying the results earlier in December. Rationale ranged from accusations of faulty or manipulated voting machines to allegations of falsified ballots appearing en masse at critical voting sites. None of these accusations, however, have stood up in court.
“The recent stuff that we’ve seen with election challenges in Pennsylvania and Arizona and so forth — there are certain features of blockchain that would have made it possible to do more robust auditing,” Hardman said. “You’d basically be able to lay to rest any concerns about tampering and things like that.”
With public blockchains, such as Bitcoin’s (BTC) for example, every transaction is recorded on an immutable public ledger, making audits more foolproof and transparent than centralized or paper-based processes. Applying such technology to voting could achieve similar results for votes.
Although the model appears transparent and unchangeable, how would authorities know if votes came from citizens who only voted one time? “What you want is what’s called end-to-end verification,” Hardman explained. “On the one side, the front side of it is the registration part,” he said, adding:
“You need to know that a person can only register one time and that means that when somebody comes in to register you do the things that you would do in a physical election mechanism today, which is — you check the driver’s license, you see if their picture matches, their signature matches, all that kind of stuff.”
Then, under the hood, the technology ensures each person only a single vote. “On the backend, you prove that for any given registration, you can cast exactly one vote,” Hardman said.
A vastly complex topic calling for varied solutions based on differing threat factors, a blockchain-involved voting system might include specific components for preventing voter fraud and malware, such as biometric-based voter identification. “If you know that, ya know, John Smith from 123 Main Street in Pennsylvania has a particular fingerprint, then it’s pretty hard for somebody else to cast a vote on his behalf,” Hardman explained.
That said, what then stops governments and companies from taking advantage of such personal information for tracking and other usages? Hardman explained China and its COVID prevention measures as an example of privacy infringement. The country has tracked its peoples’ temperatures, matched with their identities and locations, he explained.
“In the case of elections, what you’d like is to separate those two questions,” Hardman said. “The question — is the party that’s trying to cast a vote authorized to do so because they’ve been prior registered in the system — is one question,” he noted. “The question ‘who is this person,’ is a different question,” he explained, adding:
“There are parts of an election where you might want to ask both questions, but there are other parts where you don’t need to ask both, and if you separate those, then you can prevent the government from doing that — from having kind of an apocalyptic surveillance state that knows which vote you cast and when you cast it and stuff like that.”
A key to the problem? A blockchain technology called zero-knowledge proofs, according to Hardman. Zero-knowledge proofs essentially verify a person’s identity without actually revealing their private data. “You ask somebody at registration time to strongly identify, you know, who they are, where they live and so forth, but at the time they cast their vote, what you ask them is to prove that they have the privilege of casting the vote without disclosing who they are,” Hardman explained. “You further ask them to prove that their vote has not already been tracked in the system […] which guarantees that you can’t vote twice.”
Over the past few years, blockchain has gained popularity for its usefulness in a number of mainstream processes, such as supply chain activities.