The quote: As Binance's CCO bluntly admitted to another Binance compliance officer in December 2018, "we are operating as a fking unlicensed securities exchange in the USA bro."
He might be able to use the defense of "they did the unlicensed securities operations against every piece of advice I gave them". If he tried to stop it but was unable that could be a legitimate defense.
One of the first (and best) pieces of advice I ever received upon joining the industry was to never send an email that I wouldn't be willing to see published on the front page of The NY Times.
A thousand years is a lot of time for an industry that has practically forgotten its death-and-resurrection experience of just fifteen years ago.
One thing is for sure: Technology will ensure that the fine art of relieving "suckers" from their monetary assets will reach ever higher levels of sophistication.
Calling the 2008 financial crisis a "death-and-resurrection experience" is a bit hyperbolic. Nobody important went to jail, the banks got bailed out after a couple of them merged, and the bankers still got their bonuses.
The only people that got fucked were the customers. The financiers got their just fine.
I was pissed a few years ago when I tried to open a Binance account, but was utterly unable to convince the site that I was me. I moved on and never did get around to making a crypto investment.
In retrospect it might have been my best UX interaction ever.
One of the first lessons you learn in finance is that if you get caught using personal apps (encrypted or not) for work product, you are at best fired but also potentially prosecuted.
It turns out finance regulators have heard about WhatsApp and will take it out on your firm if you use it.
Eh no? There’s increasing SEC enforcement discretion to require record keeping for all communications, including encrypted apps. To the tune of billions of dollars of fines…
The relationship between encrypted personal apps and legal discovery is .. interesting. The UK government seems to have taken to using Whatsapp for this purpose, along with conveniently "losing" or factory resetting phones that might have evidence that would be relevant to a public inquiry.
Encrypted data is just as easily subpoened as unencrypted data. Subpoenas come in the form of "give us everything related to X."
In case of highly-relevant info mixed with other non-relevant, but highly-confidential information, some courts allow a trusted third-party to see the documents and use their judgement what to submit to the court as part of the subpoena.
"But courts won't know what is in the encrypted info, so can't subpoena it, and you can't get in trouble over that." doesn't work. They order you to hand everything over. If you decline, and the opposing party convinces someone on your side to cooperate, you are in trouble.
If you decide not to turn something over, you get a nice stint in contempt-of-court land, which may include some all-expense paid nights at a not-so-nice hotel.
Regulated finance is already in hot water for the simple fact of using encrypted personal appsnfor communication, even if that communication isn't hinting at crimes.
Traditional finance already knows what not to put in writing at all. Some crypto bro amateurs just gave their compliance training people a ton of funny quotes to work with.
This would be an awesome lesson for them to learn, if they get confident in their encrypted comms, they might start writing what they really say behind closed doors. Then, when the prosecution flips one, we’ll get some real juicy stuff.
Blackberries weren't called Crackberries because people were sending each other funny emails. they were sending encrypted chat via BBM years before iMessage took off.
"The entire finance industry will repeat this quote for a thousand years as an example of Things To Not Put In Writing during employee training."
Am I the only one noticing that the quote complains about them putting it in writing and not actually doing it? Like the industry is more focused on avoiding logging your crimes and not actually committing crimes?
“Don’t do crimes” is presumably already part of the training? This episode will stand forever as evidence that, regardless of whether you’re doing anything wrong, writing down an sentence that nakedly says your are is a Bad Idea. If you’re in the wrong, defending yourself just got a lot harder. If you weren’t actually in the wrong now you’ve created something you’ll have to defend yourself from.
Patrick has consistently been highly critical of the entire cryptocurrency industry for shady practices over many years. His condemnation for their breaches in this case is a given.
It's been said that a cultural artifact of the pandemic era was "oversharing". People just being incredibly candid and loose with their personal feelings. And it's just bonkers how that has played out in the legal arena. I'm thinking in particular of the Dominion lawsuit against Fox where they just had all those texts admitting in completely uncoded direct language that they were lying on purpose.
I see huge meme potential in the statement "we are operating as a fking unlicensed securities exchange in the USA bro". What do you say, should we make this a Thing?
So that's very curious, not really the private exchange between 2 high level executive, but rather how that exchange ended up at the SEC... The SEC doesn't tell how they acquired this quote, nor even whether it's a legitimate quote at all. We all believe the SEC is not gonna lie, right? Well, then that let us with 2 options: the executive cooperated with the SEC (huh, how and why? was he threatened or was he offered a better paycheck?), or they have some spying tools (also weird..). Any other option?
[+] [-] anotherpaulg|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] quesera|2 years ago|reply
That's some short-term thinking there!
[+] [-] mech987987|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|2 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] TradingPlaces|2 years ago|reply
https://youtu.be/Ly82nabRRYc?t=75
[+] [-] DonsDiscountGas|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] aaronbrethorst|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|2 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] highstep|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nologic01|2 years ago|reply
One thing is for sure: Technology will ensure that the fine art of relieving "suckers" from their monetary assets will reach ever higher levels of sophistication.
[+] [-] phone8675309|2 years ago|reply
The only people that got fucked were the customers. The financiers got their just fine.
[+] [-] hirundo|2 years ago|reply
In retrospect it might have been my best UX interaction ever.
[+] [-] latency-guy2|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ElfinTrousers|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] anyoneamous|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lordnacho|2 years ago|reply
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ly82nabRRYc
[+] [-] asah|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kasey_junk|2 years ago|reply
It turns out finance regulators have heard about WhatsApp and will take it out on your firm if you use it.
https://www.computerworld.com/article/3675289/16-wall-street...
[+] [-] snake_doc|2 years ago|reply
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-09-27/wall-stre...
[+] [-] pjc50|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] compiler-guy|2 years ago|reply
In case of highly-relevant info mixed with other non-relevant, but highly-confidential information, some courts allow a trusted third-party to see the documents and use their judgement what to submit to the court as part of the subpoena.
"But courts won't know what is in the encrypted info, so can't subpoena it, and you can't get in trouble over that." doesn't work. They order you to hand everything over. If you decline, and the opposing party convinces someone on your side to cooperate, you are in trouble.
If you decide not to turn something over, you get a nice stint in contempt-of-court land, which may include some all-expense paid nights at a not-so-nice hotel.
[+] [-] hef19898|2 years ago|reply
Traditional finance already knows what not to put in writing at all. Some crypto bro amateurs just gave their compliance training people a ton of funny quotes to work with.
[+] [-] bushbaba|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bee_rider|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rchaud|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lost_tourist|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ornornor|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rapnie|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] paddw|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 8organicbits|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lesuorac|2 years ago|reply
Am I the only one noticing that the quote complains about them putting it in writing and not actually doing it? Like the industry is more focused on avoiding logging your crimes and not actually committing crimes?
[+] [-] kristjansson|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] CoastalCoder|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jdlshore|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] s1artibartfast|2 years ago|reply
I'm honestly curious how people jump to such conclusions
[+] [-] potatototoo99|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tomhoward|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tootie|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fear_and_coffee|2 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] lloydatkinson|2 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] adql|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] blitzar|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ElfinTrousers|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lost_tourist|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] welfare|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] WinstonSmith84|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mnd999|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] soared|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] loeg|2 years ago|reply
The SEC would not fabricate a quote like this, no, and it's very weird that you're suggesting they might.