Topic: [2018-03-08]SEC Says Cryptocurrency Exchanges Must Register With Agency (Read 200 times)

How can you call the exchange of a whale? Bitcoin is the many small and large investors in the stock exchange whose accounts were frozen after the break. If these bitcoins were returned without sale then no one would notice anything. But the legislation is not adapted for cryptocurrencies and therefore there was such a situation. This situation arose in Japan. This is the most tolerant country to bitcoin. What can we say about other countries?

It sounds very reasonable. But how the regulations are going to prevent such hack, for instance of Mt.  Gox's case. It looks like more technique issue than regulation concern.

Good that there are some regulations so cheaters can not play with whatever they want.

Before worrying about support tickets, start worrying about the ICOs and other cryptocoins that have the possibility to be branded as securities. The SEC may order a US based exchange to delist them or else be shutdown.

I also worry more for Bittrex than Poloniex. Poloniex was bought by Circle and is now in talks with the SEC about how to move forward in a regulated environment.

Bittrex, meanwhile, has released no statement after the SEC's announcement that US based exchanges should register with the government regulator.

probably because of the proliferation of security tokens that can't be defined any other way. that's a pretty recent phenomenon.

in the early years, there was just BTC, which most people agree is not a security. the first generation of altcoins were similarly decentralized and open source, and even in the case of (centralized closed source) ripple, it's hard to argue that XRP is some sort of certificate of ownership or derivative contract or that ripple labs issued them with the promise of investor profit.

ethereum was the first ICO. but it's a functioning decentralized cryptocurrency and was never marketed as a security. and it wasn't officially launched until mid-2015. i think that's when this stuff really began hitting the SEC's radar. and it basically takes 1-2 years for the feds to do anything in general.

now that everybody and their grandma is launching ICOs that are very obviously securities, and (unregistered) exchanges are listing them and allowing US customers to trade them? SEC got no choice but to do something about it.


you're an old-timer. i remember being much more trusting of exchanges in 2013 than i am now. and honestly, years ago, newcomers were usually people with some basic technical knowledge or real interest in markets. newcomers today are dumber than ever. total plebs trying to get rich quick.


they'll never do that. not in a million years. that's not how regulators work, at least not in america. they usually fine and/or litigate against parties but don't offer explicit guidance on how to properly comply. then everyone tries to interpret the case to see what the SEC's position is. they never give explicit guidance, only general.

the best we get is things like the munchee ICO. basically, don't do what munchee did, because that'll get you shut down, fined, maybe even imprisoned. but that tells us nothing about how to properly comply. it just tells us what not to do.

poloniex and bittrex are registered in the USA. will it be that with these measures we will have better treatments on the part of these two exchanges in the future? for example, will these exchange with government intervention fear us treating us poorly as not responding to support tickets and ignoring us for months and years? will it be that with this we can go to complain in SEC if any of these exchange does not respond to our support tickets and does not solve our problems? I'm sorry I'm not a US citizen so I do not know what the exact role of the SEC and what powers of intervention the SEC has in relation to the exchange

I keep thinking Dan's invention of DPOS and BitShares is how this could force exchanges to build on top of it.  Just the way OpenLedger did by becoming a gateway in and out of the blockchain.  They bootstrapped markets such as open.BTC:BTS or open.ETH:bitUSD etc...  This way they collect fee's on those market trades and can also white/blacklist for required .gov regulation.  This may be the way exchanges go to reduce liability and fit into regulation.  Everyone now has 100% visibility into the exchanges inter-workings since its on the blockchain itself, a large part of what the SEC is going after with current private exchanges.

Well soon see how much regulation is applied, hopefully just enough to allow the market to thrive.

I wish the SEC could have made this move sooner, like as early as the time when these exchanges started coming out of the woodwork. Though people are expected to do their due diligence in identifying the trustworthy ones, the lack of a clear and strong regulation of these so called entities have made the market a bit murky. For all we know, the prices that these exchanges post on their website are based on their so called guru's whim which happened to come out of his ass that day. SEC, FinCen, IRS or whatever agency is supposed to be tasked to implement the regulation, let's move from the talk and put the regulations in place.

I reckon there are other nonsense blockchains listed in Bittrex to be worried about more than Bitshares. At least Dan Larimer and his development team were experimenting on new consensus algorithms by coming up with something called Delegated Proof of Stake.

The projects of today are not even trying to innovate anymore.

Short term, it's not ideal.  But if we give it a couple of years for the technology underpinning atomic cross chain transactions to mature, there will (hopefully) be less reliance on centralised exchanges anyway, which is undoubtedly a good thing, given how many security problems they tend to have.  It's likely the only people who will care about this in the long term will be the margin and day traders.  For anyone not feeling the overwhelming desire to set stop-limits and create walls, you'll be better off not paying the often exorbitant exchange withdrawal fees and simply hopping from one blockchain to another with no middlemen.  And I wish the best of luck to anyone at the SEC with the notion in their head they could regulate that.    

Most cryptocurrencies (i.e. non-ICO coins) are not securities.


Manipulation means controlling the price in order to buy or sell at particular prices. Simply buying or selling large amounts is not "manipulation", even when it causes the price to move.


This statement shows how little the author knows about Bitcoin and it is good evidence that everything else she writes is probably wrong.

An anarchist who talks about regulation being healthy.
Wow. Such fun. Much wow

This is already happening.  Exchanges can not let users trade crypto securities, otherwise they will face issues from the SEC.

Example
Bittrex actually unlisted trading of the BitShares token because their lawyers fear it is a security.  The BitShares foundation has now hired a well known legal counsel for two important documents, a professional legal opinion that it is not a security and also for them to reach out the SEC for a "non action letter."  These just may become the documents required for exchanges to list a coin going forward.  This is probably a good thing, to weed out the nonsense blockchains!
https://steemit.com/bitshares/@bitshares.fdn/report-spokesperson-bitshares-blockchain-foundation-on-bittrex-inc-and-other-regulatory-issues

On the other hand this paves way for decentralized exchanges with gateways supporting the in/out markets.  2018 is shaping up to twist around the current environment.

Hmm. They've had several years to inform people of this. Why did they spring this on everyone now?

And I've never in my life heard anyone say 'this place is an exchange ergo it is automatically fully regulated'. Everyone knows they're dodgy shitholes.

I wonder when we're going to get a comprehensive list of which coins are securities and which are not. They're going to have to definitively outline that to enforce things properly.

That would that mean for us? Would that mean the SEC would also have the power to decide which coins or tokens to list in a SEC registered exchange?

I reckon that the government's agenda of over-regulating the cryptospace might discourage the people from investing, and that could result in slower adoption or none at all.

This makes sense. With regulations the exchanges will be more healthy.

To be really quite frank about it, these so-called "exchanges" really need to be regulated because it can sway people into the belief that it is one of those exchanges regulated by law through the Securities and Exchange Commission. Otherwise, if they insist in deregulation, they should change its platform's name to that that can be easily distinguished from the other. Make no mistake, I have been in Bitcoin just a few months after its birth. Nevertheless, I find it alarming for people who have no intention of investing in it at all, yet they find themselves in it for the wrong reasons and suppositions. I hope there is transparency so we do not end up mistakenly enticing people as it is very much destructive of Bitcoin's reputation per se.

Bitcoin's price has been in freefall this week. The price of one bitcoin hovered at $9,757, down 8.6% from 24 hours earlier, according to WorldCoinIndex.

The dramatic price drop occurred shortly after the Securities and Exchange Commission said it will require cryptocurrency exchanges to register with the agency.

Until now, the opaque crypto market has been largely unregulated. In a statement this afternoon, the SEC explained why it plans to change that:

      If a platform offers trading of digital assets that are securities and operates as an 'exchange,' as defined by the federal securities laws, then the platform must register with the SEC as a national securities exchange or be exempt from registration."

      The SEC staff has concerns that many online trading platforms appear to investors as SEC-registered and regulated marketplaces when they are not. Many platforms refer to themselves as "exchanges," which can give the misimpression to investors that they are regulated or meet the regulatory standards of a national securities exchange.

There are longstanding rumors that bitcoin prices are being manipulated by "bitcoin whales," or individuals who hold huge amounts of BTC. About 1,000 people hold 40% of all the bitcoin in the world, according to Bloomberg, so it's no surprise they exert a disproportionate impact on BTC price movements.

Today, one bitcoin whale revealed that he has sold about $400 million in bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash since September 2017. Nobuaki Kobayashi, a Tokyo-based attorney and bankruptcy trustee for the now-defunct Mt. Gox crypto exchange, said he's raising money to pay off Mt. Gox creditors.

Mt. Gox, which operated between 2010 and 2014, was once the world's largest cryptocurrency exchange, handling 70% to 80% of all trading in the world. The platform went bankrupt in 2014 after it lost 850,000 bitcoins (worth about $500 million) due to a hack.

,,,,,,

Read more: Bitcoin Price Tumbles Below $10k As SEC Says Crypto Exchanges Must Register With Agency | Investopedia https://www.investopedia.com/news/bitcoin-price-tumbles-cryptocurrency-bloodbath-continues/#ixzz596G60poQ