Reply to Jay is below. First things first...
https://twitter.com/stephendpalley/status/1311694266389929986BREAKING: CFTC sues Bitmex, Arthur Hayes "to enjoin their ongoing illegal offering of commodity derivatives to U.S. persons, their acceptance of funds to margin derivatives transactions from individuals and entities in the U.S., & their operation of a derivatives trading platform
yay the drama we need
BitMEX CTO got arrested.
(etc...)Smooth move.
I
have noticed that many sites nowadays ban Americans together with the
slaves “citizens” of other notoriously “free” countries, such as the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.
I always get a laugh when I see the United States on one of those “rogue state people, go away” TOS lists. Too bad—it must pretty much suck for any sane individual Americans and/or North Koreans.
BitMEX and the mobile apps issued under BMEX are wholly owned and operated by HDR Global Trading Limited, a Republic of Seychelles incorporated entity or its relevant authorised affiliates.
BitMEX did not offer anything to “U.S. persons”!Pre-blowup archive for reference: https://web.archive.org/web/20200930062121/https://www.bitmex.com/app/termsYou are not allowed to access or use the Services or the Trading Platform if you are located, incorporated or otherwise established in, or a citizen or resident of: (i) the United States of America, the province of Ontario in Canada, the province of Québec in Canada, the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China, the Republic of Seychelles, Bermuda, Cuba, Crimea and Sevastopol, Iran, Syria, North Korea or Sudan;
Whereas if jurisdiction is lacking, then why should a defendant suffer trial before a court lacking proper authority, for alleged violation of laws that do not bind the defendant?
Of course in the law, there are various issues that are considered threshold issues, and of course, jurisdiction is one of those areas.
[...]
Sometimes attorneys will argue issues that are further up the ladder because if they end up losing on some of the more foundational / threshold issues and they present NO arguments on the other matters, then they would end up losing everything merely based on losing on the threshold issue. Some lawyers and clients are going to be more willing to stick to ONLY arguing the one issue - but many times, they do end up arguing the other issues, too, while at the same time NOT waiving their right to be totally correct on the foundational/threshold issue that allows the bringing of the case in the first place.
[...]
The law can be pretty god damned crazy, sometimes, because it is NOT really uncommon for attorneys to make internally inconsistent arguments, just to make sure that their bases are all covered - but frequently also, they will make their strongest arguments first, and sometimes cut off weaker arguments in order to NOT seem to be grappling at straws ... but I would think that the vast majority of western judges are well able to accept that parties will sometimes make inconsistent arguments... but still tactically, sometimes, it may well be better to just stick to the stronger arguments and to eliminate the weaker and inconsistent arguments or the non-threshold arguments - like you seem to be suggesting.
Of course, I did not intend to suggest what the BitMEX legal strategy should be.
When the client’s life, liberty, and/or property are on the line, then unless the client wants to take a
huge legal risk merely to grandstand, it would be negligent malpractice for an attorney to omit such arguments in the alternative as may be available to him.
“This jurisdiction’s laws do not bind my client, and this court lacks proper authority to try my client—but dear honourable court of improper authority, here is why my client did not even violate the laws that do not bind him.”It looks damn sleazy, and it is—but the legal system
is sleazy. The problem is institutional and systemic. There is no reason to make a martyr of oneself by pretending that it isn’t.
Whereas this forum is NOT the court. And I am not an attorney-at-law representing the BitMEX (HDR) corporation and/or its executives.
Thus, I will take a stand and say, first of all, explain just why the fuck the United States is pretending to have jurisdiction here. What is the American CFTC, a god?
Why am I so vehement about this? Besides general principle, that is.
On the other hand, it is possible that you and I (or one of us) might find out that Bitmex's behavior was more egregious than we had earlier considered, and we might adjust our opinions or maybe the strength of our opinion(s) might change with the learning of new facts and logic.
I do NOT like scammy exchanges. Indeed, earlier this year on this forum, I got booted out of DT2 because I was gunning too hard for Yobit.
(A DT1 ~attacked me in another thread within 2 hours of starting to defend Yobit from me; the timestamps make the motive quite transparent.) Now,
that is a scammy exchange—but I digress...
BitMEX has always had a sterling reputation. Now, due to this American action, I suddenly see people convicting them in the “court of public opinion”—it seems just because “American CFTC said so”. If BitMEX were doing something really wrong, and if the evidence were brought out, then I would be the first to condemn the wrongdoing. (Whether or not the Americans have the right to prosecute it would be another matter—they are NOT the world-police.) But that is not what I have been seeing, these past few days.
Meanwhile, just yesterday, I
popped into the BSV thread for the first time (Loyce.club archive, just in case). And today, what do I there behold?
Third post by a “Newbie” account, obvious shill:Re: [ANN] [BSV] BitcoinSV - Satoshi's Vision for Bitcoinhttps://coingeek.com/coingeek-live-2020-regulating-the-digital-assets-industry-is-key-to-future-growth/ CoinGeek Live 2020:
Regulating the digital assets industry is key to future growth
The days when digital assets were considered a
lawless wild west which was beyond
the reach of regulators is way behind us. On Day 1 of the CoinGeek Live conference, some of the leading minds in the legal industry discussed the regulation of the digital asset industry, letting us in on how to build a compliant Bitcoin business in the U.S., Japan and the European Union.
While regulators started off on the back foot in
policing the digital assets industry, most of them are now
catching up, Joshua Ashley Klayman told the virtual audience. Klayman is a senior counsel at Linklaters LLP, a London-based law firm with over 3,000 lawyers across the world. Based in New York, Klayman works with digital asset companies that are seeking to get into the U.S. market.
“It’s been said many times that there’s a lack of regulatory clarity. I think at this point, that’s just an excuse. I think if you engage with the regulators, you can find a path forward,” she remarked.
[...]
The subject is interesting, without trust no regulation...
without regulation... no state therefore no existence. All open and in conformity with the laws.
This is not the case for many other coins.Bitcoin is a 'common good'.
Bitmex was damaging it by 100x margin, as easy as this.
btc going down 1% wipes out the 100X long position.
can a 1btc account spoof? No. can a 10K-100K btc account do the same on mex? Absolutely.
We have speed limit signs on most highways, right? Same idea.
Bitmex is no autobahn.
I would not shear a single tear if mex is gone or curtailed (after allowing outgoing btc transfers, of course).
Resistance to the “ZOMG we need to regulate it!!! kowtow to the regulators” attitude is a major Bitcoin issue—and resistance to American world-police megalomania is a major issue to anybody who does not want to be a slave.