Why has Binance filed a protective court order against the SEC?
08/15/2023 •
Binance filed a protective court order against the SEC because they believe the SEC is conducting a 'fishing expedition' with overbroad and unduly burdensome requests. — Multiple viewpoints suggest Binance's belief that the SEC's requests are overbroad and unduly burdensome, implying a potential overreach by the SEC in its investigation. This perspective appears more frequently in the comments compared to the theory of Binance hiding potential wrongdoings.
Stats
| 50% | 83 | Bluesky |
| 50% | 82 |
| 57% | Negative |
| 37% | Neutral |
| 7% | Positive |
| 48% | 😱 Fear |
| 44% | 😡 Anger |
| 7% | 😃 Joy |
| 1% | 😢 Sadness |
| 0% | 🥰 Love |
| 0% | 😯 Surprise |
😱
😡
😃
Story
- Binance may be attempting to hide potentially incriminating evidence such as involvement in wash trading or other shady practices. These assertions primarily stem from the belief that a standard company would cooperate with the SEC rather than filing a protective order. Some individuals refer to Binance negatively, using phrases like "stupid greedy fuckers".
- There's significant suspicion regarding the SEC's investigation. Some believe the SEC is conducting a "fishing expedition" and perceive their requests as overbroad and unduly burdensome. This perspective implies that the SEC is potentially overstepping its boundaries.
- A number of individuals believe Binance is trying to protect itself from what they view as an unfair targeting by the SEC. This viewpoint suggests Binance is acting defensively because they believe the SEC's actions are unwarranted.
- There is a mix of sentiment when comparing Binance's situation with other firms. Specifically, the allegations against Binance by the SEC are seen as more severe than those against Coinbase.
- Some comments express support for Binance's decision to file a protective order, suggesting they've acted in good faith. They argue the SEC shouldn't have limitless power to investigate without discernible limitations.
- Criticism and skepticism abound concerning Binance's defense against the SEC's communication requests. While some view Binance's arguments as attempts at obfuscation, others question the need for any company to provide all of its communications to regulatory bodies.
- Amidst the discussions, there's also some amusement or sarcasm directed towards Binance's actions. Comments make humorous references, such as filing protective orders against crypto losses or the IRS, or jest about Binance's assertions regarding their CEO and CFO's knowledge.
- On the flip side, there are concerns about potential overreach by the SEC. Commenters question the necessity of the SEC's broad requests for communication records and customer information, implying a trust deficit towards the regulatory body.
- Commenters draw attention to Binance's stance against allowing the SEC to depose their leadership, arguing that the CEO and CFO do not have unique firsthand knowledge pertinent to the case. This assertion has evoked reactions ranging from skepticism to amusement.
- A recurring theme among the comments is the difference between "knowing" something and having enough proof to present in court. This perspective underscores the distinction between suspicions and actionable evidence.