3 ms·

I don't see how the SEC could rule eth is a security and maintain its integrity, which is critical when dealing with this new technology if it wishes to retain

I don't see how the SEC could rule eth is a security and maintain its integrity, which is critical when dealing with this new technology if it wishes to retain some form of control into the future. The primary use of ether in its purest abstraction (ie not packaged in an index fund), is in the form of gas to power the individual steps of the computer. It is no more a security than the gasoline in your car. However, based on the statements, there are going to be a lot of coins that are a security and a lot of coins are going to blur the line to the point of near invisibility. It is arguable that Eth is already doing this. It's clear the SEC is far behind, and needs a new framework by which to judge these coins, instead of hammering them into existing frameworks designed explicitly for older financial vehicles.

will_brown 8y ago
>The primary use of ether in its purest abstraction (ie not packaged in an index fund), is in the form of gas to power the individual steps of the computer. It is no more a security than the gasoline in your car. I’m sure if you compared the number of people who bought ETH to actually use as gas to facilitate a transaction vs simply investing for profit compared to the number of people who bought gas to fuel their cars vs resell for profit...you might not get so wrapped up in you analogy
- 21 8y ago
  The relevant part is not if you can make a profit, but if there is a "promoter" which says that. He gave an example how buying a house is not a security even if you expect prices to go up, but buying the same house through another legal entity with management can be a security.
habitue 8y ago
> The primary use of ether in its purest abstraction (ie not packaged in an index fund), is in the form of gas to power the individual steps of the computer. It is no more a security than the gasoline in your car. Yes, and the piece addresses that directly: > But this also points the way to when a digital asset transaction may no longer represent a security offering. If the network on which the token or coin is to function is sufficiently decentralized – where purchasers would no longer reasonably expect a person or group to carry out essential managerial or entrepreneurial efforts – the assets may not represent an investment contract. In other words, as long as Ethereum's promise is just that -- promise --, and the people buying ETH are expecting a return on their purchases from the efforts of the Ethereum developers, it is likely to be classified as a security. To the extent that ETH is used as "gas" to power a computation, and people buy it to use it for that purpose, ETH is no longer a security. I think a fundamental confusion here is that the law, and in general regulatory enforcement bodies like the SEC, look at something like this by how it is actually used in practice, not by the mathematical properties, or the intent of the developers. As an example, he points out that simply calling the thing you're selling a "token" instead of "an investment" when the network is not even up and running yet, does not fundamentally change the facts on the ground. People are buying your "token" because they want to see it be worth something in the future, and it's not up to them whether it increases in value. He's saying, sorry, that's a security.

will_brown 8y ago

>The primary use of ether in its purest abstraction (ie not packaged in an index fund), is in the form of gas to power the individual steps of the computer. It is no more a security than the gasoline in your car. I’m sure if you compared the number of people who bought ETH to actually use as gas to facilitate a transaction vs simply investing for profit compared to the number of people who bought gas to fuel their cars vs resell for profit...you might not get so wrapped up in you analogy

21 8y ago
The relevant part is not if you can make a profit, but if there is a "promoter" which says that. He gave an example how buying a house is not a security even if you expect prices to go up, but buying the same house through another legal entity with management can be a security.

habitue 8y ago

> The primary use of ether in its purest abstraction (ie not packaged in an index fund), is in the form of gas to power the individual steps of the computer. It is no more a security than the gasoline in your car. Yes, and the piece addresses that directly: > But this also points the way to when a digital asset transaction may no longer represent a security offering. If the network on which the token or coin is to function is sufficiently decentralized – where purchasers would no longer reasonably expect a person or group to carry out essential managerial or entrepreneurial efforts – the assets may not represent an investment contract. In other words, as long as Ethereum's promise is just that -- promise --, and the people buying ETH are expecting a return on their purchases from the efforts of the Ethereum developers, it is likely to be classified as a security. To the extent that ETH is used as "gas" to power a computation, and people buy it to use it for that purpose, ETH is no longer a security. I think a fundamental confusion here is that the law, and in general regulatory enforcement bodies like the SEC, look at something like this by how it is actually used in practice, not by the mathematical properties, or the intent of the developers. As an example, he points out that simply calling the thing you're selling a "token" instead of "an investment" when the network is not even up and running yet, does not fundamentally change the facts on the ground. People are buying your "token" because they want to see it be worth something in the future, and it's not up to them whether it increases in value. He's saying, sorry, that's a security.