Bank Run Watch 2023 after Silicon Valley Bank shutdown - Over 97% of SVB's assets were not FDIC insured

I want not to derail this thread, so I'll be brief and try to make this my last post about how much Bill Gates sucks, in this thread.

I hold him personally responsible for setting us back 30+ years in terms of technological innovation and permanently fucking up the field of computer science by establishing such low standards and getting people used to computers just crashing all the time and software barely working with itself much less other software (especially competing software).
I blame UNIX. The computer systems that never had these asinine failures lost in the marketplace. In the same way a bank can fail and get bailed out, software makers have learned an entire industry called anti-virus or whatever will pop up to never solve the problem, but instead endlessly diagnose it.

A Commodore 64 boots from a ROM. An IBM PC has a writeable boot storage, which invited so-called boot sector viruses and the like. Still, in which language is Windows written? It's a cancerous growth from the C language, which takes all of the hardware-level features and security mechanisms, like type checking done everywhere in the machine back in the 1960s, and disregards them. There existed machines from the 1960s that couldn't have buffer overflows and other asinine shit, but UNIX uses none of those features. Windows is worse, sure, but it didn't do even most of the damage by itself, and now people ditch Windows for a real operating system, and define that as a UNIX clone.

People shouldn't know what a "blue screen" is, like at all.
People shouldn't know what a kernel panic is, either. Apparently, the original UNIX defined it because they didn't want to bother with error checking.

Instead, we've pissed away countless man years over the last 30 years coping with the Swiss cheese security and general incompetence of Windows' various incarnations that we could have spent inventing cool stuff.
The insecurity model of most every operating system nowadays, despite tens of millions of lines of code, is that it may probably be secure, unless someone gets arbitrary code execution, in which case all of it can be trivially circumvented. It's disgusting. One nice thing about Bitcoin and other strong cryptographic systems, is that one failure is death, so people are starting to use simpler, dedicated machines for certain tasks, because none of the current operating systems, and most of the hardware, can be trusted to do it reliably, but this is a tangent.

He developed Microsoft BASIC and licensed it to almost every major home computer manufacturer in the 70s and 80s.
Right. I forgot to mention how he and his partner stole computer time from a university to write a form of BASIC, cried crocodile tears to computer hobbyists who dared to redistribute copies, and defrauded their first customer so they could sell it to other companies and make more money.

Here's a fun story: I believe Jack Tramiel ran Commodore at the time; when Bill Gates wanted a percentage for BASIC, rather than a single payment, Jack told him he was already married.
 
If faggots want to be revisionist and change the dating system because it's not woke they should just start at 0 because there is NOTHING the world has in common two thousand years ago. If we are living in a common era it should at most be 100-200 years in it already.

Why not just start a new calendar based on the Unix time epoch of 1970? Oh wait, that wouldn't sufficiently erase Jesus Christ's connection from the calendar because the Gregorian one would still be separate, and woke retards cannot create, they can only mutilate.
In archaeology, with the advent of radiocarbon dating, a “Before Present (BP)” scale was developed which has year 0 set at 1950 AD. The reasons being atmospheric nuclear tests make radiocarbon dating after 1950 unreliable (but dating something pre-1950 is possible). I’d be okay with this terminology as it’s based on an experimental scientific measurement invaluable to history. There’s also the symbolism of humanity entering the Atomic Age being that much of a milestone.

Time keeping is one of my autistic fascinations and, in my opinion, one of humanity's greatest traditions.
 
Last edited:
Source: https://protos.com/coinbase-insiders-have-sold-nine-times-more-stock-than-theyve-bought-this-year/
1679524568969.png
Neat.

In archaeology, with the advent of radiocarbon dating, a “Before Present (BP)” scale was developed which has year 0 set at 1950 AD. The reasons being atmospheric nuclear tests make radiocarbon dating after 1950 unreliable (but dating something pre-1950 is possible). I’d be okay with this terminology as it’s based on an experimental scientific measurement invaluable to history. There’s also a symbology of having humanity enter the Atomic Age being that much of a milestone.

Time keeping is one of my autistic fascinations and, in my opinion, one of humanities greatest traditions.
I also like BP for dating for the same reason, blew my mind when I learned the thing about how we have to recover sunken ships for certain projects since those ships were made of pre-nuke steel. Seems almost magical, like the nukes changed something very fundamental about reality.
 
I also like BP for dating for the same reason, blew my mind when I learned the thing about how we have to recover sunken ships for certain projects since those ships were made of pre-nuke steel. Seems almost magical, like the nukes changed something very fundamental about reality.
When I learned that found it crazy too. The raw power of nukes is fucking awesome and something to be respected when it changes the world on such a level. They're terrifying weapons but absolutely inspiring at the same time. Enough derailing this thread though, how fucked are my savings if shit goes real bad?
 
When I learned that found it crazy too. The raw power of nukes is fucking awesome and something to be respected when it changes the world on such a level. They're terrifying weapons but absolutely inspiring at the same time. Enough derailing this thread though, how fucked are my savings if shit goes real bad?
Between Hiroshima and Tsar Bomba is my estimate.
 
When I learned that found it crazy too. The raw power of nukes is fucking awesome and something to be respected when it changes the world on such a level. They're terrifying weapons but absolutely inspiring at the same time. Enough derailing this thread though, how fucked are my savings if shit goes real bad?
Your savings are fine, interest rates rising are a good thing for people with cash on hand. The people that are fucked are the ones that are heavily leveraged into hard assets like stocks, real estate, etc as the credit crunch kills demand and deflates prices. People living off pensions / 401k's or their real estate equity, specifically.
 
Buy bullets and guns guns never lose their value the always worth pretty much the exact same amount of money or even more.
If Society collapses I'm not taking f****** silver I will take guns bullets tobacco drugs and your first born daughter
You can get most things for free if you have a gun.
 
He developed Microsoft BASIC and licensed it to almost every major home computer manufacturer in the 70s and 80s. Apple and Atari had their own forms of BASIC, but they were so slow and shitty that people went out and bought Microsoft BASIC to replace them. BASIC was a keystone component of microcomputers back then. You can't discount its importance.
Apple ended up buying MS basic eventually too. That is what Applesoft basic is. Woz was to busy to make his apple in-house version of basic not shit.
Atari and TI/99 are the only American 8bits I can think of that didn't run Microsoft basic.
Even the original IBM PC's came with MS basic in ROM.
 
Source: https://protos.com/coinbase-insiders-have-sold-nine-times-more-stock-than-theyve-bought-this-year/
View attachment 4853328
Neat.


I also like BP for dating for the same reason, blew my mind when I learned the thing about how we have to recover sunken ships for certain projects since those ships were made of pre-nuke steel. Seems almost magical, like the nukes changed something very fundamental about reality.
guess you got the other side of coin let me help
1679542143690.png

Coinbase Global Inc. said it received a notice from the SEC formally declaring the securities regulator’s plans to bring an enforcement action against the largest US crypto exchange, the latest development in a long-running dispute between the watchdog and the digital-asset company.
Securities and Exchange Commission Chair Gary Gensler has repeatedly said many of the tokens and products offered by crypto companies are securities and that the trading platforms need to register with his agency. Those warnings ramped up after the collapse of several prominent companies last year, including Sam Bankman-Fried’s FTX, left investors facing billions of dollars of losses.
In a filing Wednesday, Coinbase said the so-called Wells notice regards aspects of its exchange as well as the staking service Coinbase Earn and Coinbase Wallet. A Wells notice comes at the end of an investigation and companies are given time to rebut the agency’s allegations. They often, but don’t always, lead to enforcement actions — either lawsuits or settlements and fines. At the same time, not every potential issue identified in the notice needs to be part of an eventual action.
Coinbase said its products and services will continue to operate as usual for now. “We are prepared for this disappointing outcome and confident in the legality of our assets and services,” Paul Grewal, chief legal officer of Coinbase, said in a statement. “If needed, we welcome a legal process to provide the clarity we have been advocating for and to demonstrate that the SEC simply has not been fair or reasonable when it comes to its engagement on digital assets.”
The crypto industry has been rattled by the uptick in SEC enforcement actions since the beginning of the year, including a settlement with Coinbase’s rival Kraken and a Wells notice to Paxos Trust Co. alleging that the Binance USD stablecoin it issues is an unregistered security.
For its part, Coinbase has maintained that the tokens listed on its exchange aren’t securities and that it has a thorough vetting process. Grewal has also argued that the company’s staking product is very different than the one offered by Kraken, which was the focus of the recent SEC settlement. Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong has said the company is willing to fight the SEC in court if a resolution can’t be reached.
Kraken agreed to discontinue its program in the US without admitting or denying the SEC’s allegations.
Coinbase shares slumped 5% in post-market trading in New York. Shares of the company have rebounded this year as Bitcoin climbed to more than $28,000, though the stock is still down more than 70% from its peak in November 2021.
Not First Time
This isn’t the first time Coinbase has received a Wells notice. The SEC warned the company in 2021 that it considered the company’s proposed “Lend” product, which would have allowed users to earn interest by lending out their crypto holdings, to be a security. The exchange later canceled the launch.
Coinbase executives have expressed frustration with the SEC’s approach, saying they’ve made good faith attempts to work with the regulator and that it’s not clear how to apply the agency’s rules to digital-asset trading platforms. Those frustrations grew after the SEC identified several tokens listed on the exchange as securities as part of an insider trading case involving a former employee. Shortly after, Bloomberg reported that while Coinbase wasn’t sued as part of that case, the agency was separately investigating the firm over its token listings.
Representatives from Coinbase have met with the SEC more than 60 times over the last nine months to try to resolve the issues with the SEC, but those talks haven’t been fruitful, according to a person familiar with the matter who asked to remain anonymous discussing nonpublic information.
The company also filed a petition for rulemaking with the agency last year, which it followed up with a comment on the need for more clarity around staking services.
1679542265016.png
Coin Base Response
We asked the SEC for reasonable crypto rules for Americans. We got legal threats instead.
Tl:dr: Today, the SEC gave Coinbase a “Wells notice” regarding an undefined portion of our listed digital assets, our staking service Coinbase Earn, Coinbase Prime, and Coinbase Wallet after a cursory investigation. We are prepared for this disappointing development. We are confident in the legality of our assets and services, and if needed, we welcome a legal process to provide the clarity we have been advocating for and to demonstrate that the SEC simply has not been fair or reasonable when it comes to its engagement on digital assets. Rest assured, Coinbase products and services continue to operate as usual - today’s news does not require any changes to our current products or services.

We asked the SEC for reasonable crypto rules for Americans. We got legal threats instead.
Tl:dr: Today, the SEC gave Coinbase a “Wells notice” regarding an undefined portion of our listed digital assets, our staking service Coinbase Earn, Coinbase Prime, and Coinbase Wallet after a cursory investigation. We are prepared for this disappointing development. We are confident in the legality of our assets and services, and if needed, we welcome a legal process to provide the clarity we have been advocating for and to demonstrate that the SEC simply has not been fair or reasonable when it comes to its engagement on digital assets. Rest assured, Coinbase products and services continue to operate as usual - today’s news does not require any changes to our current products or services.

By Paul Grewal
Policy
, March 22, 2023
, 5 min read time
Coinbase Blog
Today, we are disappointed to share that the SEC gave us a “Wells notice” regarding an unspecified portion of our listed digital assets, our staking service Coinbase Earn, Coinbase Prime, and Coinbase Wallet after a cursory investigation. A Wells notice is the way that SEC staff tells a company that they are recommending that the SEC take enforcement action for possible violations of securities laws. It is not a formal charge or lawsuit, but it can lead to one. Rest assured, Coinbase products and services continue to operate as usual - today’s news does not require any changes to our current products or services.
Today’s Wells notice does not provide a lot of information for us to respond to. The SEC staff told us they have identified potential violations of securities law, but little more. We asked the SEC specifically to identify which assets on our platforms they believe may be securities, and they declined to do so. Today’s Wells notice also comes after Coinbase provided multiple proposals to the SEC about registration over the course of months, all of which the SEC ultimately refused to respond to.
Although we don’t take this development lightly, we are very confident in the way we run our business – the same business we presented to the SEC in order for us to become a public company in 2021. We continue to think rulemaking and legislation are better tools for defining the law for our industry than enforcement actions. But if necessary, we welcome the opportunity for Coinbase and the broader crypto community to get clarity in court. Below we share more details on our attempts to engage with the SEC on registration paths, the current U.S. crypto regulatory confusion, and another reminder that Coinbase doesn’t list securities.
The SEC will not let crypto companies “come in and register” – we tried.
The Wells notice comes out of the investigation that we disclosed last summer. Shortly after that investigation began, the SEC asked us if we would be interested in discussing a potential resolution that would include registering some portion of our business with the SEC. We said absolutely yes. Specifically, the SEC asked us to provide our views on what a registration path for Coinbase could look like – because there is no existing way for a crypto exchange to register. We developed and proposed two different registration models. We spent millions of dollars on legal support to build these proposals and repeatedly asked for the SEC’s feedback. We got none. We also reiterated that we stand by our listings process – we don’t list securities today – and repeatedly invited the SEC to raise any questions about any asset at all on our platform. They raised none.
We met with the SEC more than 30 times over nine months, but we were doing all of the talking. In December 2022, we asked the SEC again for some feedback on our proposals. The SEC staff agreed to provide feedback in January 2023. In January, the day before our scheduled meeting, the SEC canceled on us and told us they would be shifting back to an enforcement investigation. We now understand that there is disagreement within the Commission itself on how to proceed with a registration path. This was just two months ago.
The investigation is still at a very early stage. We have produced documents and provided two witnesses for testimony, one on the basic aspects of our staking services and one on the basic operation of our trading platform. At no point in this investigation has the SEC told us a single specific concern about a single asset on our platform. To move to a Wells notice now, is unusual to say the least. Especially because our staking and exchange services are largely unchanged since 2021, when the SEC reviewed our S-1 and allowed us to become a public company. Our core business model remains the same.
The U.S. crypto regulatory environment needs more guidance, not more enforcement
Regulatory uncertainty in the crypto industry is getting worse. Instead of developing a regulatory framework for crypto, the SEC is continuing to regulate by enforcement only. We recently explained in an amicus brief the lack of guidance for crypto companies to follow. Nevertheless, we have continued to try and engage with the SEC. In addition to our attempts to develop a registration path, we have repeatedly, formally asked the SEC to engage in rulemaking for our industry. We filed a petition for rulemaking last summer. On Monday, we submitted another substantive comment letter in support of the petition, detailing the need for clarity around the SEC’s views of staking services and the lack of notice to the industry about any SEC concerns. Just two days later we received a Wells notice that includes our staking services – the same staking services referenced 57 times in the S-1 the SEC reviewed in 2021 when we became a public company.
Importantly, Coinbase is not the only one raising these concerns. Even courts are questioning the SEC’s inconsistent positions and lack of guidance to the industry. Federal Bankruptcy Judge Michael Wiles in the recent Voyager case shared his findings in a ruling against the SEC that makes clear that the SEC is on shaky ground when it comes to the Commission’s recent views of cryptocurrencies being a security. Judge Wiles stated in his ruling: “Regulators themselves cannot seem to agree as to whether cryptocurrencies are commodities that may be subject to regulation by the CFTC, or whether they are securities […] subject to securities laws, or neither, or even on what criteria should be applied in making the decision. This uncertainty has persisted despite the fact that cryptocurrency exchanges have been around for a number of years.”
Meanwhile, our industry continues to see new, conflicting statements from regulators instead of actual rules. The Chair of the CFTC recently testified to Congress that Ethereum is a commodity, which the public has long understood to be the case. Then-CFTC Commissioner Quintenz has said that “the SEC has no authority over pure commodities or their trading venues, whether those commodities are wheat, gold, oil…or crypto assets.” Current SEC Chair recently opined that perhaps BTC is the only digital asset commodity, which is entirely at odds with the position of the CFTC. If our regulators cannot agree on who regulates which aspects of crypto, the industry has no fair notice on how to proceed. Against this backdrop, it makes no sense to threaten enforcement actions against trusted public companies like Coinbase who are committed to playing by the rules. It makes even less sense to threaten enforcement actions unless an industry participant concedes that non-securities can be regulated by the SEC. That is for Congress to decide.
Coinbase does not list securities
The bottom line remains: Coinbase does not list securities or offer products to our customers that are securities. Coinbase has a rigorous process to analyze and review each digital asset before making it available on our exchange — a process that we shared in detail with the SEC as part of our public listing. This process includes an analysis of whether the asset could be considered to be a security, and also considers regulatory compliance and information security aspects of the asset. 90%+ of assets that we review are not ultimately listed on Coinbase because they do not meet these standards. Coinbase has rejected hundreds and hundreds of assets because they did not meet these standards. This is exactly why we were so eager to engage in registration discussions with the SEC, to find a home for assets like these that can’t currently be listed on any exchange.
As we’ve also explained before, our staking services are not securities under any legal standard, including the Howey test which assesses whether a product is an investment contract. We first presented our staking services to the SEC in 2019. Then twice more in 2020. We were largely met with silence. Until this investigation, we had heard no concerns at all from the SEC about our staking services.
Coinbase Wallet is a technology, not an exchange or broker or centralized platform. This misunderstanding of crypto products, assets and services is another example of the need for comprehensive crypto regulation in the U.S. that understands the technology.
Conclusion
Tell us the rules and we will follow them. Give us an actual path to register, and we will register the parts of our business that need registering. In the meantime, the U.S. cannot afford for regulators to continue to threaten the good actors in the crypto industry for doing the same legal and compliant things they’ve always done. This unfair approach will only drive innovation, jobs, and the entire industry overseas. At our core, we are the very same company that we were on April 14, 2021 when we became a public company at the end of the lengthy process with the SEC itself. We remain confident in the legality of our assets and services, and if needed, we welcome a legal process to provide the clarity we have been advocating for and to demonstrate that the SEC simply has not been fair or reasonable when it comes to its engagement on digital assets.
In the meantime, Coinbase will continue to do what we do best: updating the financial system by building the most trusted products and services to advance our mission of creating more economic freedom and opportunity around the world
 
Last edited:
I mentioned over in The Bidness a few months ago that raising interest rates is like the emergency scram button on a nuclear reactor for the Federal Reserve. They feel like they can get away with anything so long as they have that fail safe. But in the specific circumstances they created, keep interest rates near zero for so long, raising the rates now would trigger a catastrophe.
 
&& Esclation
1679591275868.png

Exercise Caution with Crypto Asset Securities: Investor Alert
March 23, 2023
TLDR: The SEC’s Office of Investor Education and Advocacy continues to urge investors to be cautious if considering an investment involving crypto asset securities. Investments in crypto asset securities can be exceptionally volatile and speculative, and the platforms where investors buy, sell, borrow, or lend these securities may lack important protections for investors. The risk of loss for individual investors who participate in transactions involving crypto assets, including crypto asset securities, remains significant. The only money you should put at risk with any speculative investment is money you can afford to lose entirely. Investors should understand that:

1. Those offering crypto asset investments or services may not be complying with applicable law, including federal securities laws. Under the federal securities laws, a company may not offer or sell securities unless the offering is registered with the SEC or an exemption to registration is available. Similarly, the law requires parties such as securities broker-dealers, investment advisers, alternative trading systems (ATS), and exchanges to register with the SEC, a state regulator, and/or a self-regulatory organization (SRO), such as FINRA. Moreover, entities and platforms involved in lending or staking crypto assets may be subject to the federal securities laws.

Registration of a securities offering requires the issuer to disclose important information about the company, the offering, and the securities offered to the public. Unregistered offerings in crypto asset securities may not provide key information that investors need to make informed decisions. For example, registration typically requires an issuer to include financial statements audited by an independent public accounting firm registered with the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB). Audited financial statements play an important role in making sure investors are provided the information they need to understand the securities in which they want to invest. Issuers of unregistered crypto asset securities offerings might not provide audited financial statements, depriving investors of this key information.

Proof of Reserves is a term crypto asset entities, including trading platforms and/or entities that issue crypto assets securities, use to describe a voluntary method for offering evidence that in the aggregate an entity has sufficient reserve assets to cover what is held for customers and/or accounts at a given point in time. Crypto asset entities may be offering these types of assessments as a way to satisfy customers that their funds are safe and available upon demand. However, these types of services may not provide any meaningful assurance that these entities hold adequate assets to back their customers’ balances. Further, crypto asset entities might use these in lieu of audited financial statements in order to obscure and confuse customers about the safety of their assets. For example, a proof of reserves typically:
may only provide a snapshot of what is, for example, held by an entity in certain wallets or accounts, or backing customer assets as of a point-in-time;
may not disclose management’s activities during the period between the snapshots (for example, use of customer crypto assets in crypto asset lending or other activities);
does not tell customers the whole story about the entity’s liabilities and, for example, whether the customer has to “stand in line” behind other creditors if the entity fails; and
may not offer protection against the entity moving customer assets shortly after a proof of reserves is completed.
In addition, a proof of reserves is not as rigorous, or as comprehensive, as a financial statement audit and may not provide any level of assurance. For example, audited financial statements typically require audits of a complete set of financial statements performed by a registered public accounting firm in accordance with PCAOB auditing standards. With so-called proof of reserves, there are no specific audit requirements for the engagement or the information reported, allowing an entity full discretion to manage the terms of the engagement. For example:
the extent and frequency of assessments performed around customer assets;
the determination of the reserves (for example, which wallets and accounts are examined as part of the assessment);
the level of assurance provided (for example, reasonable, limited, or no assurance) and the standards applied;
the type of third-party assurance provider engaged (i.e., accountant or non-accountant assurance providers, affiliated or independent); and
whether the results are made public, including the extent and format of the information shared.
Investors should be aware that this level of management discretion undermines any suggestion that a proof of reserves offers protections similar to a financial statement audit. In sum, investors should exercise extreme caution when relying on proof of reserves to conclude that a crypto asset entity has sufficient reserve assets to meet customer liabilities.
Similarly, registration with the SEC by an entity as a “broker-dealer” and/or “investment adviser” provides important protections for investors. Some of those benefits include rules around custody of assets, fees, conflicts of interest, standards of conduct, and minimal capital requirements for broker-dealers. For example, a broker-dealer must comply with custody requirements such as the customer protection rule, which requires broker-dealers to safeguard customer assets and to keep customer assets separate from the firm’s assets – increasing the likelihood that customers’ securities and cash can be returned to them in the event of the broker-dealer’s failure. In addition, a broker-dealer making recommendations of securities or investment strategies involving securities (including crypto asset securities) to retail customers is subject to Regulation Best Interest, which requires broker-dealers to make recommendations in the retail customers’ best interest, and requires compliance with specific disclosure, care, conflict of interest, and compliance obligations.

Recordkeeping and reporting rules require a broker-dealer to make and keep current ledgers reflecting all assets and liabilities. Moreover, financial responsibility rules require that broker-dealers routinely prepare financial statements. These books, records, and financial reporting requirements assist securities regulators in examining for compliance with the federal securities laws. Crypto asset entities not offering these types of protections put investors at risk.

ATSs, which are marketplaces for securities, must be registered broker-dealers and members of an SRO, such as FINRA. In addition to complying with federal securities laws and its SRO’s rules, an ATS must comply with Regulation ATS, which includes filing disclosures with the SEC about the ATS’s operations and securities trading and protecting its users’ trading information.

SEC-registered investment advisers that hold or have the ability to obtain possession of their clients’ funds or securities are required to maintain those assets with a qualified custodian, like a bank or broker-dealer. SEC-registered investment advisers that have “custody” of client funds and securities are also generally required to undergo an annual “surprise examination” in which an independent public accountant verifies the existence of these assets and to make and keep records showing all purchases and sales for each client.

Also, unlike SEC-registered entities, crypto asset securities trading platforms or other intermediaries (such as so-called “crypto exchanges”) may offer a combination of services that are typically performed by separate firms that may each be required to be separately registered with the SEC, a state regulator, or a SRO. The commingling of these functions, exchange, broker-dealer and custodial functions, for example, creates conflicts of interest and risks for investors. SEC-registered entities are subject to a number of rules to minimize these risks and conflicts of interests, in some cases by separating the functions into legally separate and unaffiliated entities. Registered broker-dealers, ATSs, and investment advisers are also subject to examination by regulators. None of the major crypto asset entities is registered with the SEC as a broker-dealer, exchange, or investment adviser—so investors may not get the protections afforded by the rules applicable to these entities.

In particular, no crypto asset entity is registered with the SEC as a national securities exchange (like, for example, the New York Stock Exchange or the Nasdaq Stock Market). And no existing national securities exchange currently trades crypto asset securities. As a result, investors in crypto asset securities may not benefit from rules that protect against fraud, manipulation, front-running, wash sales, and other misconduct when intermediaries for those products do not comply with the federal securities laws that apply to registered exchanges.

Investors who hold registered securities with registered broker-dealers also generally benefit from protections offered by the Securities Investor Protection Corporation (SIPC). Similarly, people who place deposits in banks enjoy insurance, up to a defined limit, provided by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). The National Credit Union Administration (NCUA) insures deposits in federal credit unions. There are no such protections for accounts that you place with crypto asset entities.

In sum, investors in crypto asset securities should understand they may be deprived of key information and other important protections in connection with their investment.

2. Investments in crypto asset securities can be exceptionally risky, and are often volatile. Over the last year, the crypto asset space has been exceptionally volatile – and a number of major platforms and crypto assets have become insolvent and/or lost value. Investments in crypto asset securities continue to be subject to significant risk, including:

volatility and illiquidity in the crypto asset markets;
the potential for the company holding your crypto assets to fail or go bankrupt;

Investors who deposit funds or crypto assets with a crypto asset securities entity might cease to have legal ownership of those assets and might not be able to get those assets back when they want to. Over the past year, a number of crypto asset entities have faced severe financial difficulties, sometimes resulting in suspending customers’ ability to withdraw their assets. Some crypto asset entities have entered bankruptcy proceedings, and it is unclear how much of their holdings (if any) customers might be able to recover. Investors need to be wary of claims that “you always retain ownership of your crypto assets” and “you can withdraw your assets whenever you like.”
unpredictability, including that the market for a particular crypto asset security may disappear altogether or the crypto asset security may no longer be tradable anywhere;
sometimes highly concentrated and opaque ownership and control structures;
enforcement of laws and regulations by federal, state, or foreign governments that may restrict the use and exchange of crypto assets;
unauthorized lending or transfers of customers’ crypto asset securities, or halting of customer withdrawals;
the inability for an investor to be made whole should fraud, default, or a mistake occur;
technical glitches, hacking, or malware; and
lack of investor protections due to crypto asset securities entities not acting in compliance with applicable law.
3. Fraudsters continue to exploit the rising popularity of crypto assets to lure retail investors into scams, often leading to devastating losses. Crypto asset securities-related investments continue to be replete with fraud, including bogus coin offerings, Ponzi and pyramid schemes, and outright theft where the project promoter simply disappears with investors’ money.

Some promoters use social media to find and entice new investors with testimonials about returns made on deposits and investments, but what is not mentioned is that the promoter is often paying investor withdrawals out of new investor funds – a Ponzi scheme. Moreover, recovering money from the wrongdoers can be nearly impossible. In part, that can be because of the anonymity or pseudonymity associated with crypto assets. However, the SEC and state regulators continue to bring enforcement actions in this space.

Celebrity endorsements: It is never a good idea to make an investment decision just because someone famous says a product or service is a good investment. A celebrity endorsement does not mean that an investment is appropriate for all investors, or even that it is legitimate. Often, a celebrity is getting paid to promote the investment opportunity, including those involving crypto assets. Even if a celebrity endorses an investment opportunity, you should consider the potential risks and opportunities to determine whether it is right for you.
Learn more about investment fraud, including how to spot “red flags” of a scam, in our Investor Bulletin, What You Can Do to Avoid Investment Fraud.

4. Having an investing plan, as well as understanding your risk tolerance and time horizon, can be critical to your investing success.

What are the best saving and investment products for you? The answer depends on when you will need the money, your goals, and whether you will be able to sleep at night if you purchase a risky investment (one where you could lose your entire principal). Before making any investment, consider these tips:

Create and follow an investment plan. Do not let short-term emotions about investments disrupt your long-term investment objectives. If you are considering short-term investments, think about how much of your overall portfolio you should allocate to these types of investments.
Pay off credit cards or other high interest debt first. No investment strategy pays off as well as, or with less risk than, eliminating high interest debt.
Consider the importance of asset allocation and diversification. Asset allocation involves dividing your investments among different assets, such as stocks, bonds, and cash. The allocation that works best for you changes at different times in your life, depending on how long you have to invest and your ability to tolerate risk.
Understand risk. All investments have risk. While some regulated institutions may offer retail investors ways to gain exposure to crypto asset securities, even when using a regulated entity, investors should ask questions and make sure they understand the terms of the investment. Never invest if you do not understand the product – including the risks involved.
 
Back