Not only does this make sense but it also further speaks to the strength of the bitcoin project, specifically Satoshi’s decision to not be a public figure/BDFL. I doubt this security-commodity issue factored in specifically, but it was really a brilliant and largely unprecedented move that aligns with bitcoin’s political philosophy as well: no leaders.
Talking about whales is just superstition for people who can't find any alpha in the markets. It's an excuse for why you didn't know the price was going to go in a certain direction. You see it a lot in amateur trading Discords and subreddits.
Ethereum has five execution clients, developed by independent teams, and another five proof-of-stake clients, also developed by independent teams, plus an open community of researchers where anyone can participate. The Ethereum Foundation funds some of this, but not all of it.
If the various teams don't agree to do something, it won't get done. You can verify for yourself that no one party is in charge, simply by listening to the public dev calls.
There are examples like https://github.com/openethereum/parity-ethereum/blob/55c90d4...
It's designed that way, but it has been attempted before: under the guise of that name, no less. I just saw Charlie Schrem on a live stream a while ago, and he strikes me as the person who best represents those conmen. Many have falled by teh way side, others in to utter irrelevance, and then imbeciles like Bruce Fenton refuse to go away and still clings onto his 'foundation status' as though that gave him any legitimacy as he runs for office.
I'll just say this: Bitcoiners, especially early adopters, don't have any tolerance for these pseudo-thought leader BS, and nothing irks us more when someone tries to speak on behalf of the community. We vote with our hashing power and our nodes, nothing else matters. We may disagree about specific things, like LukeJRs refusal to let go of his smaller block idea, but the truth is this is a cohesive unit it that is bound by self-interest as much as is its about a central ethos: it's the most resilient community I've ever been a part of and I value it most because of it's refusal to be co-opted despite its MANY attempts, even by people who calling themselves a 'chief scientist' and was 2nd only to Satoshi--who I will remind you appealed to the community to not 'kick the hornet's nest' and then did exactly that in regards to using BTC to fund Wikileaks.
> even a good one eg the move to proof of stake
You lost all credibility here.
The SEC is basically trying to argue that the speech was personal opinion (and the speech said that ETH was not a security), but Ripple alleges that the speech, though perhaps not an official statement, was much more than a personal opinion. We now know the SEC lawyers were involved in writing the speech, which is making life difficult for the SEC. This is also why the SEC is being far more careful now and is saying only BTC is not a security, but that ship may have sailed.
It's being called the Crypto Trial of the Century. A win for Ripple on the SEC's slip-up could mean the SEC is powerless to intervene in most crypto markets. A win for the SEC would result in mass regulation.
EDIT: Administrative agency "rulemaking" is constrained by a fixed set of procedures that an agency must follow in order to "promulgate" a rule. First, they must publish a draft of the proposed rules, allow for several weeks or months of public comment, spend several weeks or months reviewing those comments, revise the rules as needed based on the comments received (or explain why no revisions are necessary), and then finally publish the finalized rules in the Federal Register.
Comments made by a single employee do not convey, or constrain, an agency's position on matters within its scope (unless those comments are made in, and pursuant to, a legal proceeding, in which case they are binding only for the limited scope of that legal proceeding).
For instance, the duly elected Democrats who control the House, Senate and White House like to point the finger at the Supreme Court, but they could easily pass whatever law they want about abortion. There would be no more arguing about original intent or penumbrae etc.
If the SEC wins, they can define some cryptocurrencies as "securities" which then automatically becomes part of their regulatory authority.
This is why they are being careful to say only Bitcoin isn't a security now. That speech in 2018, centerpiece of the lawsuit, said Ethereum also was not a security. If that speech is found a legally binding statement, it's really hard to find anything smart-contract-powered from Ethereum to XRP as a security.
https://www.klgates.com/CFTC-and-SEC-Perspectives-on-Cryptoc...
[0]: Article I, Section 9 <https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_St...>
Well, yes. That's the Howey test. It's pretty simple. A lot of crypto issuers liked to think it didn't apply to them, but the SEC has been saying consistently that it does. There's argument over whether crypto brokers, exchanges, or miners are subject to regulation. But anybody who created and issued a cryptocurrency is clearly making a public offering of a security.
The crypto community got away with a lot during the "line goes up" phase, because the SEC usually acts only when investors lose money. After a 2 trillion US dollar loss in market cap, that phase is over. There will be more complaints and more enforcement actions.
I'm cracking up over here. Are you actually being serious?
it didn't address explicitly what all others were
“That’s the only one I’m going to say because I’m not going to talk about any one of these tokens”
https://twitter.com/SBF_FTX/status/1541565079992369155?s=20&...
Securities use resources to try and generate a return -- companies try to sell a product, bonds generate interest, etc.
Securities: Stocks and Bonds
Commodities: Metals, Grains, and Oil
A commodity's defining feature is its interchangeability. One unit is essentially the same as another unit. To an orange juice company oranges are oranges, to an apple juice company apples are apples, and to an oil refinery one barrel of oil is a lot like any other barrel of oil. Commodities must meet certain minimum quality standards and markets do distinguish between different types of the same commodity. But for the most part it's about quantity.
https://www.findlaw.com/consumer/securities-law/securities-v...
A commodity is a basic good used in commerce that is interchangeable with other goods of the same type. Commodities are most often used as inputs in the production of other goods or services. The quality of a given commodity may differ slightly, but it is essentially uniform across producers.
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/commodity.asp
> And what does this distinction change for the SEC?
Good question.
This thread is full of suggestions. I couldn’t find a truly compelling one except that Bitcoin could fit the description of a commodity.
Some stable coins fit the security definition pretty well since they come with a right to redeem for dollars. Other cryptos don't really fit either.
In that capacity it is similar to gold, which in the Golden Age (something everybody talked about in Antiquity and I decided to believe, but I've never encountered anybody else believing in) was openly swapped around as little inventions (you can make all kinds of shit with gold, it's a miracle material, lubricant, any precision, single isotope, list goes on endlessly) and gifts, but then some assholes decided to start hoarding it and enslaving people to mine it, charging interest using it, weigh one gold gift against another saying they balance out, use it to pay for wars to amass more gold. And it became something we just hoard underground. In other cultures it's this stuff, like Kechwa (Inca) it was about worshipping the sun and sure enough it basically is the sweat from the sun because it only is created by stars in supernovas. Idealistic in its origin.
Except in satellites, in satellites it's used for all kinds of shit, the foil for reentry (silver and gold, but only the gold resisted reentry), as lubricant, for welding (4:1 gold to tin), for the electronics of course, as a conductor in some cases so wire, heat foil. And medicine, so dentistry a huge amount but also implants, gold-titanium alloys. And injections for rheumatism in a chemical composition. And anything that must not rust, the go-to is gold.
So all the other coins? They're shitcoins. There is only Bitcoin, everyone else just wanted to get rich quick. Satoshi never cashed out, I divine he committed suicide in 2015 embarrassed not by its success but in how much he owned by being the first to mine it. It was the only crypto that didn't get pre-mined, but he didn't get other people on board fast enough to avoid owning tons of it. So Lycurgus, too, he made the laws of Sparta so they would never be slaves in response to the end of the Golden Age and the constant threat of conquest--basically successful--but was embarrassed of benefitting by then becoming king, so he said "don't change the laws til I return" and left, and starved himself to die. And many say he never existed. Just like many say Satoshi never existed.
I was wrong in discarding them. I would, in addition to apologizing, salvage my claim in the following terms: bitcoin is the gold standard, the first and foremost, just as every metal is unique and gold is gold and nothing else identical. But there can also be silver, and platinum, and rhenium, and ruthenium, and rhodium, and copper, and many others. Bitcoin was the first, and is unique, but is not the last.
If you "game theory" him out, I believe he adds up to being in crypto for idealistic reasons as well, despite the appearance of the methods he's using to get there.
Gensler has commented on those specifically in the past [1].
They aren't. Bitcoin's blockchain has a longer proof-of-work than BCH. Honest nodes will only mine the longest blockchain (per Satoshi). Therefore any blockchain shorter than Bitcoin's will ultimately collapse in the long term, making them unsuitable to be considered commodities.
Water and oil are both fungible commodities. No one would claim they're economically interchangeable with each other.
Every point you make doesn't seem to make much sense.
Nobody is doing that. For all the new techiness of crypto, its popular failure modes of pumps and dumps, rug pulls and promoters lying through their teeth is identical to the pre-Securities Act securities landscape. So for those narrow problems these proven solutions should work.
A Ponzi over Blockchain is still a Ponzi.
> Ether is a product, NOT a security or investment offering. Ether is simply a token useful for paying transaction fees or building or purchasing decentralized application services on the Ethereum platform; it does not give you voting rights over anything, and we make no guarantees of its future value.
Gensler's comments today suggest the opposite will be true?
1. You invest money in
2. Along with others
3. With the expectation of profit
4. Derived from the efforts of others
ETA: (the others in #2 need not be the same others in #4)
Everyone is going to get rich and nobody is going to have to put in any effort, just HODL.
WAGMI! To the moon!
Probably not in the traditional sense. The difference Bitcoin has to most cryptocurrencies is that it was specifically designed with no "premined" blocks and no preordained rewards. In contrast, a lot of projects sold tokens through an "ICO" with a promise of a future project developed against it. ICOs are basically securities, because you're buying the token without actually any guarantee that the project delivers on what it needs to deliver on for the value to change.
In contrast, again, Bitcoin was just offered as a cryptocurrency, from the start. The first block encoded a current event to distinguish the fact that there aren't any rewards already allocated to creators. It was also launched with the complete product available from the start (sans network upgrades).
Note: I'm not saying that Bitcoin is good or anything. I'm just distinguishing between it and most other tokens. Bitcoin has governance systems in place and other systems that make it "more security like" but clearly the SEC chair doesn't seem to believe it crosses that line.
I expect this will be even more true for crypto. While I believe that some regulation might be a good thing as it makes crypto safer for the wider public I am genuinely doubtful that the SEC has the capabilities or the right incentives to be that regulator.
Most people in Wall Street and the crypto community want clearer regulations so they know what the rules are for specific coins/tokens and transactions. What we have now is a very slow Government trying to catch up with technology coupled with infighting between different regulators defending their own turf.
Fortunately there was a bill introduced in the US Senate (referenced in the article) that would clear up much of this, along with various taxation issues.
Which is good, we don't want to give the government over-reaching powers, but we also want them to do something.
As far as the IRS is concerned they treat them the same for capital gains.
Since when has this ever been true?
Silver is a commodity, is it not?
Silver has a perpetual mining for thousand years, like gold.
This is just equivalent to 'employers opinions does not reflect my own'
1. Get paid in BTC for a service or a product (or buy BTC with offshore money) 2. Sell to someone for an agreed on price 3. Get cash/local currency/supplies/whatever
Two thoughts:
- Lower hype on bitcoin is a good thing for me, as it will bring less attention to it from goverments. I just need a critical mass of people there are enough buyers/sellers/miners.
- The two things that worry me are: governance of the project, and the fact that bitcoin mining traffic can be detected (somewhat like torrents). So, if govts want, they could force the ISPs to check for traffic that may indicate mining, raid, and eventually kill all mining operations (China probably will). Most likely, some countries will be more lax on that.
