[hailwren]

> I suppose you could argue about whether the CFTC's relevant regulations protect anyone, but they certainly think they do, and if so it's easy to argue that Binance was skirting those protections.

There are two weird things here. The first is that the CFTC does have purvue to protect the American people. However, if Binance were to simply say “we now accept US citizens” — the trading cited here would be allowed. Market makers are accredited investors.

It’s rather because they offer services to investors who are not US based which, if they were offered to US investors, would only be allowed to be offered to Accredited Investors — Binance has chosen to not offer services in the US, and allowed Accredited Investors (the same group who would be permitted if they did operate in the US).

The case is interesting. Even though these traders were operating significant portions of their business from the US, the claim will be made that they were acting as their international subsidiary.

[JumpCrisscross]

> if Binance were to simply say “we now accept US citizens” — the trading cited here would be allowed

No, it wouldn't. Derivatives exchanges and swaps settlement requires licenses, e.g. from the CFTC. Also, the swaps analog for accredited investor is eligible contract participant (ECP) [1].

[1] https://www.cftc.gov/sites/default/files/idc/groups/public/@...

[hailwren]

Right, my point is that the allegedly “protected” parties in this case would still be able to trade with Binance if Binance were licensed.