Litecoin founder Charlie Lee denies claims of insider trading on Coinbase
Litecoin founder Charlie Lee has come forward to deny recent allegations, accusing the former Google engineer of engaging in LTC insider trading on Coinbase during the time he served as a director of engineering at the popular exchange desk.
In a Medium post from yesterday, independent cryptocurrency sleuth Bitfinex’ed – better known for their extensive criticism of exchange desk Bitfinex and its shady ties to cryptocurrency firm Tether – speculated the reason behind Lee’s recent decision to dump all of his Litecoin wasn’t to avoid “conflict of interest.” Instead, it was to benefit from the currency’s sudden surge in price.
Bitfinex’ed goes on to suggests that Lee was involved in an elaborate scheme to get Litecoin listed on Coinbase and its close associate, exchange desk GDAX – a move that would see the ex-Googler cash out his LTC holdings following a 9,150-percent increase in value.
The independent investigator further insists that – prior to integrating Litecoin trading on Coinbase on May 3 last year – Lee had already been exploiting his position at the company to advance his own undertaking.
For background, Lee eventually left the popular exchange desk to focus on Litecoin a month after LTC appeared on Coinbase.
The Bitfinex’ed post has since prompted Lee to respond to the accusations, defending his decision to keep his engineering role at Coinbase while working on Litecoin.
“ I saw this FUD article recently, and I figure I should refute it before it gets spread as truth,” the former Googler wrote in a Reddit post. “I’ve already seen many people say that it proves something.”
“ I joined Coinbase in 2013 as the [second] engineer and helped build Coinbase to become what it is today,” Lee continued. “I didn’t just join them last year, get them to add Litecoin, and quit! I took [three] years before I felt like it made sense business-wise to add Litecoin to Coinbase.”
Responding to claims of collusion with Coinbase CEO and founder Brian Armstrong, Lee said that he pitched the idea to integrate Litecoin at the same time he broached adding Ethereum. The latter ultimately made it to the exchange platform first.
“When it made sense, LTC was added to GDAX because LTC was the top-[three] trading volume of any coins at that time,” Lee added. “And when GDAX started doing huge volume for LTC, I asked Brian if it made sense for Coinbase to add LTC in that tweet.”
“He said yes, and that was when the decision was made.”
The Litecoin founder further clarified that his departure from Coinbase was announced ahead of time. “T he whole company knew already months before the decision was made to add Litecoin,” he said.
Curiously, Coinbase has recently been embroiled in a series of insider trading scandals.
Shortly after Bitcoin Cash made its debut on the exchange desk, its price saw an exorbitant surge on Coinbase; many cryptocurrency enthusiasts speculated the reason for the sudden increase in value could’ve been due to insider trading.
Indeed, Armstrong later confirmed the company is running an internal investigation to determine whether there was any foul play. The company has since chalked up the price increase to “extreme buyer demand.”
More recently, Coinbase had to dispel news that cryptocurrency Ripple (XRP) might soon make its way on the platform, following rumors that employees were chatting about integrating XRP at the company’s Christmas party.
“ As of the date of this statement, we have made no decision to add additional assets to either GDAX or Coinbase,” the post read. “Any statement to the contrary is untrue and not authorized by the company.”
While cryptocurrency companies are technically not yet regulated for insider trading, authorities across the globe are gradually moving towards introducing new legislation .
This could spell a whole lot of trouble for Coinbase – or any other cryptocurrency company possibly engaging in illegitimate activities.
Will blockchain be able to solve the post-Brexit Irish border problem?
No, just no .
US rules cryptocurrencies are commodities in $6M fraud case
The US Federal Court has ruled that virtual currencies (like Bitcoin) are commodities – similar to coffee or oil. The judgement comes as part of a wider commodities fraud case, involving an (allegedly) illegitimate cryptocurrency called My Big Coin (MBC).
In late September, Senior Judge Rya W. Zobel declared the power to prosecute alleged cases of commodities fraud involving cryptocurrency.
“[T]he Court held […] the particular virtual currency at issue, MBC, was a commodity under the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA).” read a statement . “According to the Court, the term ‘commodity’ “includes a host of specifically enumerated agricultural products as well as ‘all other goods and articles […] and all services rights and interests […] in which contracts for future delivery are presently or in the future dealt in.”
Lawyers representing MBC attempted to argue the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) has no jurisdiction over fraud cases involving cryptocurrencies by claiming it could only rule on cases of “market manipulation.”
That motion was rejected by Judge Zobel, who declared the law “explicitly prohibit[s] fraud even in the absence of market manipulation.”
This reflects separate judgements recently obtained by the CFTC related to other cryptocurrency fraudsters – and that the trading of Bitcoin futures has become common on Wall Street.
In fact, when Wall Street investment funds launched Bitcoin futures trading, regulators posted a customer advisory notice to really hammer the point home: trading virtual currencies is the same as trading any other commodity, and is subject to the same regulations.
Federal regulators hope to strengthen the greater commodities futures trading sector by making it absolutely clear that virtual currencies are indeed commodities.
My Big Coin was a Big Scam
Lawyers representing the supposedly real cryptocurrency MBC, moved to dismiss a CFTC complaint related to MBC’s business operations beginning in January 2014, which eventually forced Zobel’s hand.
The CFTC is suing developers of MBC on the grounds they “operated a fraudulent virtual currency scheme in which they solicited customers to purchase a fully-functioning virtual currency.”
The complaint declares MBC’s operators repeatedly made “false and misleading claims,” about its financial backing, trade status, functionality, and its value. Basically, regulators allege that the entire platform was a sham.
“To give the illusion that MBC was a safe bet, [MBC] also lied that it was backed by millions of dollars in gold, and would be used to stabilize the economies of twenty-two countries,” reads CFTC’s statement. “[MBC also] misappropriated customer funds by conning people into giving them more than $6 million for what [MBC] represented was a fully-functioning virtual currency.”
To make matters worse, the CFTC says MBC used the misappropriated funds to purchase “a home, antiques, fine art, jewelry, luxury goods, furniture, interior decorating, and other home improvement services, travel, and entertainment.”
Alas, we can finally mark this one for good: virtual currencies like Bitcoin are commodities, and Ethereum is too decentralized to be a security .
Got it.
If you’re interested in everything blockchain, chances are you’ll love Hard Fork Decentralized. Our blockchain and cryptocurrency event is coming up soon – join us to hear from experts about the industry’s future. Ticket sales are now open, check it out!
Leave a Comment