4 ms·

There are very specific requirements with strong precedent (see: Howey Test https://www.investopedia.com/terms/h/howey-test.asp https://www.investopedia.com/ter

by ve55 5y ago

There are very specific requirements with strong precedent (see: Howey Test https://www.investopedia.com/terms/h/howey-test.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/h/howey-test.asp) that must be met to be considered a security, and it is very clear that currencies like Bitcoin don't meet them. If various bodies wish to regulate it, there are plenty easier and stronger tools to use than securities laws. With that said, many companies involved in minting their own cryptocurrency (primarily during the IPO craze a few years ago) did sell unregistered securities in plain sight, often committing massive fraud alongside it, and it's no surprise that the SEC has been catching up with it over the last few years.

busymom0 5y ago
Most of your comment is okay but the last line in your comment seems to making a slight allegation that LBRY did something fraudulent which is not what happened nor is being accused here by the SEC. Nor is this a recent development. SEC has been harassing LBRY since May of 2018 and they have spent over a million in legal fees so far. If this harassment continues, how any startup will be able to continue fighting bigger fish like YouTube, FB etc is beyond me.
- betwixthewires 5y ago
  > ...how any startup will be able to continue fighting bigger fish like YouTube, FB etc is beyond me. Maybe by not selling unlicensed securities. Like bitchute is doing, or daily motion, or rumble, or even peertube. I'm not saying that selling unlicensed securities should be illegal, but it currently is, and if you look at LBRY, there's a strong case that it did sell an unlicensed security.