7 ms·

When was ETH declared as not a security? I don't remember hearing anything about that. The SEC says only BTC is a commodity: https://www.axios.com/2022/06/28/

When was ETH declared as not a security? I don't remember hearing anything about that. The SEC says only BTC is a commodity: https://www.axios.com/2022/06/28/bitcoin-is-the-only-coin-the-sec-chair-will-call-a-commodity https://www.axios.com/2022/06/28/bitcoin-is-the-only-coin-th... The CFTC says only BTC is a commodity: https://cryptoslate.com/cftc-chair-rostin-behnam-snubs-ethereum-claims-only-bitcoin-is-a-commodity/ https://cryptoslate.com/cftc-chair-rostin-behnam-snubs-ether... People keep saying that regulation is unclear, when let's be honest, it's perfectly clear. Just not what a lot of people wanted to hear.

taeric 3y ago
The fact that they have been asked, point blank, by congress, "is ETH a security?" and the SEC wouldn't answer is pretty fair for claiming "not perfectly clear." Even here, it wasn't all of ETH that is under question. So, if you have bought some ETH from coinbase, it isn't under fire here. If you paid them to stake your ETH, it is. It is unclear, to me, what it would mean for any ETH you staked personally.
- throw1234651234 3y ago
  That's the root of the problem - it's absolutely unclear what the global implications are and if this will be used to go after individuals staking on their own, etc.
  - loeg 3y ago
    No agency has the resources or interest to go after individuals that aren't doing anything especially egregious.
- vkou 3y ago
  I've watched that interview, congress would ask a loaded question, framed in a fallacy[1], the chair would start answering it, and the congresscritter would interrupt him and throw a tantrum. Repeat 5x. It wasn't a good look. For the congresscritter. (I wonder how much money he's gotten from Sam, CZ, and Coinbase...) [1] The fallacy in question is the congresscritter's claim[2] that a security can't also be a commodity. This is trivially disprovable by a simple example - an isolated company town using scrip, where the scrip also happens to be company stock. [2] Whenever the chair would start responding to the fallacy, the congresscritter shouts over him, because if he doesn't, his argument-in-the-form-of-a-question falls to pieces.
  - taeric 3y ago
    He wouldn't start answering. He was asked "yes or no, is ..." and would start hemming and hawing with words that were neither "yes" or "no."
    - vkou 3y ago
      Have you stopped beating your wife? Yes or no. No hemming or hawing. It's a simple question, yes, or no? ---- Is it clear to you now that a simple yes or no question, couched in an incorrect assertion is not actually a simple yes-or-no question?
      - taeric 3y ago
        A question where answering easily implies past behavior is very different from one that does not. "Do you think it is ok to beat your spouse?" better not get any slow rolled answer, and is more comparable here. Hell, I'd be fine with a hedged answer of "it can be." That would make a ton of sense and would make sense. Akin to asking "is it speeding to drive your car at 40?" The answer would be "in certain situations, certainly. Can be too fast and it can be too slow." So an answer of "I can't answer without more context" would be fine. None of that is what I saw.
        vkou 3y ago
        Past behaviour isn't the issue. An incorrect assertion is the issue. Let me give you another chance to answer a simple yes or no question. ---- Since it's obvious that democrats are all criminals and baby-eaters, is Elizabeth Warren a democrat? Yes or no. No hemming or hawing. I'll interrupt you as soon as I hear any words besides those two. Your answer or failure to answer will appear as a headline in the New York Times. ---- The chair was responding to the statement made in the question, the congressman just didn't like what that response was, which is why he kept interrupting.
        taeric 3y ago
        The question was literally "is ETH a security?" To compare that to the questions you are stating is laughably bad faith argument. Though, I'll bite. What statement is made by the question "Is ETH a security?" Why is that a question that can't be answered with "Yes", "No", or "it depends how it is packaged"?
whimsicalism 3y ago
> People keep saying that regulation is unclear, when let's be honest, it's perfectly clear. Just not what a lot of people wanted to hear. I honestly don't know how you can say that with a straight face if you have ever looked into this for more than 5 minutes. The regulation is not clear and they refuse to clarify when asked on many important topics. Compare that to other security related issues, where regulators are very proactive about clearly defining what is what, publishing explainers, etc. etc.

taeric 3y ago

The fact that they have been asked, point blank, by congress, "is ETH a security?" and the SEC wouldn't answer is pretty fair for claiming "not perfectly clear." Even here, it wasn't all of ETH that is under question. So, if you have bought some ETH from coinbase, it isn't under fire here. If you paid them to stake your ETH, it is. It is unclear, to me, what it would mean for any ETH you staked personally.

throw1234651234 3y ago
That's the root of the problem - it's absolutely unclear what the global implications are and if this will be used to go after individuals staking on their own, etc.
- loeg 3y ago
  No agency has the resources or interest to go after individuals that aren't doing anything especially egregious.
vkou 3y ago
I've watched that interview, congress would ask a loaded question, framed in a fallacy[1], the chair would start answering it, and the congresscritter would interrupt him and throw a tantrum. Repeat 5x. It wasn't a good look. For the congresscritter. (I wonder how much money he's gotten from Sam, CZ, and Coinbase...) [1] The fallacy in question is the congresscritter's claim[2] that a security can't also be a commodity. This is trivially disprovable by a simple example - an isolated company town using scrip, where the scrip also happens to be company stock. [2] Whenever the chair would start responding to the fallacy, the congresscritter shouts over him, because if he doesn't, his argument-in-the-form-of-a-question falls to pieces.
- taeric 3y ago
  He wouldn't start answering. He was asked "yes or no, is ..." and would start hemming and hawing with words that were neither "yes" or "no."
  - vkou 3y ago
    Have you stopped beating your wife? Yes or no. No hemming or hawing. It's a simple question, yes, or no? ---- Is it clear to you now that a simple yes or no question, couched in an incorrect assertion is not actually a simple yes-or-no question?
    - taeric 3y ago
      A question where answering easily implies past behavior is very different from one that does not. "Do you think it is ok to beat your spouse?" better not get any slow rolled answer, and is more comparable here. Hell, I'd be fine with a hedged answer of "it can be." That would make a ton of sense and would make sense. Akin to asking "is it speeding to drive your car at 40?" The answer would be "in certain situations, certainly. Can be too fast and it can be too slow." So an answer of "I can't answer without more context" would be fine. None of that is what I saw.
      - vkou 3y ago
        Past behaviour isn't the issue. An incorrect assertion is the issue. Let me give you another chance to answer a simple yes or no question. ---- Since it's obvious that democrats are all criminals and baby-eaters, is Elizabeth Warren a democrat? Yes or no. No hemming or hawing. I'll interrupt you as soon as I hear any words besides those two. Your answer or failure to answer will appear as a headline in the New York Times. ---- The chair was responding to the statement made in the question, the congressman just didn't like what that response was, which is why he kept interrupting.
        taeric 3y ago
        The question was literally "is ETH a security?" To compare that to the questions you are stating is laughably bad faith argument. Though, I'll bite. What statement is made by the question "Is ETH a security?" Why is that a question that can't be answered with "Yes", "No", or "it depends how it is packaged"?

whimsicalism 3y ago

> People keep saying that regulation is unclear, when let's be honest, it's perfectly clear. Just not what a lot of people wanted to hear. I honestly don't know how you can say that with a straight face if you have ever looked into this for more than 5 minutes. The regulation is not clear and they refuse to clarify when asked on many important topics. Compare that to other security related issues, where regulators are very proactive about clearly defining what is what, publishing explainers, etc. etc.