3 ms·

People are trying to over-complicate this even though the lines are clear. The intent is here what matters regardless of the implementation. Are you selling a "

by csomar 3y ago

People are trying to over-complicate this even though the lines are clear. The intent is here what matters regardless of the implementation. Are you selling a "future expected outcome" or are you selling an art piece (or whatever other junk) with no strings attached. Of course, selling the art piece without a proposition to an increase in value will not attract "investors". > Even tokens like ETH or BTC could be considered currencies/commodities rather than securities despite all of the "project" language. BTC is, also according to the SEC. The problem with ETH is that they did an ICO early on the life of the project. I think that's why the chairman of the SEC refused to answer. They don't want to make it not a security so that they don't create a precedent. ETH foundation ICO might be the biggest mistake they ever made. It'll never go away...

semi-extrinsic 3y ago
From what I've understood, the CFTC and the SEC have decided between them that the CFTC will worry specifically about BTC and ETH (and a few other coins that can reasonably be considered commodities), and the SEC will worry about the rest. That is likely why the SEC chairman doesn't want to comment on them.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
phire 3y ago
Bitcoin is getting a pass mostly because nobody has any control over Bitcoin. There might be a loose community project, but Bitcoin is basically frozen in its current state, with no innovation. It's really hard to argue there is a common enterprise when there isn't really an enterprise at all. > ETH foundation ICO might be the biggest mistake they ever made It doesn't really matter if the Eth foundation did an ICO in the past or not, the simple fact that they are a coordinated project with a strong leadership structure who exercise quite a bit of control over the future of Eth is a strong indication that an "enterprise" exists. The main reason why SEC are hedging their bets over ETH is that they don't actually know if it's a security. It's not the SEC who defines what's a security or not (though they often offer advice). The definition of "security is actually defined by the courts, so the only way to know either way is a court case. And the SEC clearly wants to create some legal precedent by prosecuting cases that are much more obvious. Also... the status of something being a security isn't necessarily static. Just because Bitcoin is considered not a security now doesn't mean it will never be considered a security. If the bitcoin miners decided to band together and take active control over the direction of bitcoin innovation, then its current excuse would evaporate. If they transformed it into something that was obviously a security, then no amount of "But the SEC previously said bitcoin wasn't as security" will protect it.
- csomar 3y ago
  > Just because Bitcoin is considered not a security now doesn't mean it will never be considered a security. If the bitcoin miners decided to band together and take active control over the direction of bitcoin innovation, then its current excuse would evaporate. This is a messed up logic. Of course, if you changed the fundamentals of Bitcoin, the consequences will also change. But saying that "Bitcoin is considered not a security now doesn't mean it will never be considered a security" implies that the same Bitcoin can potentially be considered a security. Which is an entirely different premise.

by csomar 3y ago

semi-extrinsic 3y ago

From what I've understood, the CFTC and the SEC have decided between them that the CFTC will worry specifically about BTC and ETH (and a few other coins that can reasonably be considered commodities), and the SEC will worry about the rest. That is likely why the SEC chairman doesn't want to comment on them.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

phire 3y ago

Bitcoin is getting a pass mostly because nobody has any control over Bitcoin. There might be a loose community project, but Bitcoin is basically frozen in its current state, with no innovation. It's really hard to argue there is a common enterprise when there isn't really an enterprise at all. > ETH foundation ICO might be the biggest mistake they ever made It doesn't really matter if the Eth foundation did an ICO in the past or not, the simple fact that they are a coordinated project with a strong leadership structure who exercise quite a bit of control over the future of Eth is a strong indication that an "enterprise" exists. The main reason why SEC are hedging their bets over ETH is that they don't actually know if it's a security. It's not the SEC who defines what's a security or not (though they often offer advice). The definition of "security is actually defined by the courts, so the only way to know either way is a court case. And the SEC clearly wants to create some legal precedent by prosecuting cases that are much more obvious. Also... the status of something being a security isn't necessarily static. Just because Bitcoin is considered not a security now doesn't mean it will never be considered a security. If the bitcoin miners decided to band together and take active control over the direction of bitcoin innovation, then its current excuse would evaporate. If they transformed it into something that was obviously a security, then no amount of "But the SEC previously said bitcoin wasn't as security" will protect it.

csomar 3y ago
> Just because Bitcoin is considered not a security now doesn't mean it will never be considered a security. If the bitcoin miners decided to band together and take active control over the direction of bitcoin innovation, then its current excuse would evaporate. This is a messed up logic. Of course, if you changed the fundamentals of Bitcoin, the consequences will also change. But saying that "Bitcoin is considered not a security now doesn't mean it will never be considered a security" implies that the same Bitcoin can potentially be considered a security. Which is an entirely different premise.