<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>bjackman</author><text>I&amp;#x27;m not an expert here but I read their argument as they don&amp;#x27;t expect this lending to be regulated as &amp;quot;investment&amp;quot; because the capital is not in theory at risk. So it&amp;#x27;s more like a savings account than an investment account.&lt;p&gt;That&amp;#x27;s the impression I got from the article, but reading other comments in the thread it doesn&amp;#x27;t seem like that&amp;#x27;s an at all relevant definition of the term!</text><parent_chain><item><author>dustintrex</author><text>Agreed, and this line pretty much sums it up:&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; &lt;i&gt;Customers won’t be “investing” in the program, but rather lending the USDC they hold on Coinbase’s platform in connection with their existing relationship.&lt;/i&gt;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;Give me money for a fixed period of time and I&amp;#x27;ll pay a guaranteed return on your principal. No, it&amp;#x27;s not an &amp;quot;investment&amp;quot;, you&amp;#x27;re just lending it in connection with our existing relationship!&amp;quot;</text></item><item><author>uncomputation</author><text>I actually initially wanted to be on Coinbase’s side here, but after a quick google of “Howey test” and reading even just the introduction on Wikipedia, I cannot imagine how they don’t see the SEC’s reasoning about Lend wrt Howey. If you want to argue that Howey does not apply or fight the decision&amp;#x2F;lawsuit, then fine. But feigning ignorance of something a (non-legal expert) programmer can connect the dots of instantly just makes me feel like they’re playing a PR game. Seeing as they are already offering APY on staked Ethereum, I don’t see “concern” reflected in their actions. Seems like they are trying to get out to the public before the SEC does to farm some good will.</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>The SEC has told us it wants to sue us over Lend. We don’t know why</title><url>https://blog.coinbase.com/the-sec-has-told-us-it-wants-to-sue-us-over-lend-we-have-no-idea-why-a3a1b6507009</url></story>
<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>justincormack</author><text>Securities lending, the repo market, is a large well understood and regulated existing market.</text><parent_chain><item><author>dustintrex</author><text>Agreed, and this line pretty much sums it up:&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; &lt;i&gt;Customers won’t be “investing” in the program, but rather lending the USDC they hold on Coinbase’s platform in connection with their existing relationship.&lt;/i&gt;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;Give me money for a fixed period of time and I&amp;#x27;ll pay a guaranteed return on your principal. No, it&amp;#x27;s not an &amp;quot;investment&amp;quot;, you&amp;#x27;re just lending it in connection with our existing relationship!&amp;quot;</text></item><item><author>uncomputation</author><text>I actually initially wanted to be on Coinbase’s side here, but after a quick google of “Howey test” and reading even just the introduction on Wikipedia, I cannot imagine how they don’t see the SEC’s reasoning about Lend wrt Howey. If you want to argue that Howey does not apply or fight the decision&amp;#x2F;lawsuit, then fine. But feigning ignorance of something a (non-legal expert) programmer can connect the dots of instantly just makes me feel like they’re playing a PR game. Seeing as they are already offering APY on staked Ethereum, I don’t see “concern” reflected in their actions. Seems like they are trying to get out to the public before the SEC does to farm some good will.</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>The SEC has told us it wants to sue us over Lend. We don’t know why</title><url>https://blog.coinbase.com/the-sec-has-told-us-it-wants-to-sue-us-over-lend-we-have-no-idea-why-a3a1b6507009</url></story>