Topic: Avalanche is NOT listed as a security (SEC) (Read 119 times)

You pretend to know much more than we do. Could you tell us
1) what algorithm does SEC use to perform the analysis of the technology?
2) how does the result of this analysis influence the decision of SEC to declare a coin security now or any time later?
3) what is a legal definition of decentralisation used by SEC?
4) what is a legal definition of scalability used by SEC?
5) is it possible that SEC conceal information about its procedures from the public?

I observed that it was not on the list of tokens classified as Security by SEC, this is why you ask yourself how Avalanche is different from the likes of Solano and some of the Altcoins on the list. Remember the time when there were allegations that the Avalanche team was going after other Altcoins in other to hinder their progress, this is the link to the article marketrealist.com/cryptocurrency/avalanche-crypto-conspiracy-explained/. if the team has a pact with the SEC or any of the enforcement teams I am not surprised it is not on the list

I still don't know why SEC will go after coins minted on Ethereum and not on ethereum it's self, I believe all these are ways to cramp down crypto because bull has started coming little by little

You are wrong because you have no proof for your wrong claims.

You are wrong again, Avalanche has an office in New York.

Why should it be, it's enough decentralized like Ethereum, which wasn't listed as well.
Your speculation seems to be lacking any proof.

Solana has a very centralized tech, Avalanche has decentralized tech.

Looks like you have not done any research before making a comment. Avalanche is decentralized coin: https://medium.com/avalanche-hub/avalanche-consensus-the-biggest-breakthrough-since-nakamoto-66e9917fd656

You are wrong, Solana has a lot less Validators compared to Avalanche. You need to make your research before making a comment because your comment is a lie.
Avalanche has around 900 Validators, while Solana only has 25 Validators.
Please make a proper research next time before leaving a comment.

You are talking bullshit because you are spreading lies. You should stop it.
If you will continue to spread lies, I will give you negative trust for spreading lies.
Do your research before making a comment.


Your claim is wrong, you need to make more research. Looks like you have not done any research before making a comment.
Avalanche is completely new tech, making it more decentralized.
It is called Avalanche consensus, where Avalanche is very scalable from. Avalanche is very advanced technology.
Very good read here: https://medium.com/avalanche-hub/avalanche-consensus-the-biggest-breakthrough-since-nakamoto-66e9917fd656

In opposite, Solana is a centralized coin. It is run by few nodes, not very decentralized. Solana already had some errors, where it could only be solved by developers making intervention. Very centralized.
Cardano is a very centralized coin as well because it relies on Charles Hoskinson's popularity.
You should get more education before making such a comment.

Also, technology is important like if a coin is scalable and scalability is making it decentralized.

---

No, it's not only time needed, Avalanche is not listed because it is decentralized, like Ethereum is not listed as well.
It won't change as Avalanche and Ehhereum are improving decentralisation.

---

You are 4 or false information.

Of course decentralisation is important to be eligible for SEC.
It is important because Bitcoin and Ethereum are decentralized enough to be eligible for SEC.
And Avalanche seems to be decentralized enough, too.

---

No, because Avalanche keeps getting more decentralized over time, like Ethereum.

---

Your claim is wrong. It is all about decentralisation, like Ethereum and Bitcoin are eligible. Centralized shitcoins are not eligible, rightfully so. Let's hope SEC will and Gary Gensler will crush such shit coins like Ripple because Ripple is a fraud coin engaged in market manipulation: https://news.bitcoin.com/xrp-sentiment-manipulated-by-thousands-of-bots-analyst-claims/


Yes, Avalanche has better tech compared to most Atcoins, making it more decentralized: https://medium.com/avalanche-hub/avalanche-consensus-the-biggest-breakthrough-since-nakamoto-66e9917fd656

It's not joke from SEC, SEC needs to be more harsh on shitcoins like to weed out Ripple scamcoin, ban it and issue a cash punishment for Brad Garlinghouse, who is CEO and has profited from Ripple shitcoin.
Ripple made huge market manipulation and needs to get shut down: https://news.bitcoin.com/xrp-sentiment-manipulated-by-thousands-of-bots-analyst-claims/
SEC has waited far too long to take down Ripple while Garlinghouse has sold more fraudulet Ripple coins to more people.

---

I don't see any arguments because Ethereum and Avalanche are decentralized enough.

Matic is a huge shitcoin, it's completely unnecessary and not innovative at all.

Avalanche is not a centralized cryptocurrency because it's a very decentralized technology.
You can read more here: https://medium.com/avalanche-hub/avalanche-consensus-the-biggest-breakthrough-since-nakamoto-66e9917fd656
Every coin has developers, Ethereum as well.
Important is, what tech is built. And like Ethereum, Avalanche is a leading decentralized coin.

There are very strong arguments that can be made in favor of classifying Ethereum and Avalanche as securities. Matic is essentially a clone of Ethereum so I don't see how one can be considered a security but not the other. Avalanche is a centralized cryptocurrency that is managed by a company, Ava Labs. It seems some centralized coins are excluded due to having spent more on lobbying to get politicians in their favor.

SEC. and Gary Gensler are doing their shitshow by arbitrarily picking winners and losers among thousands of alternative cryptocurrency projects. They don't apply a consistent definition and legislation on altcoins.

The USA. Congress shows that they don't want Gary to inconsistently make his decisions and kill cryptocurrency companies in the nation, contribute to drive those companies out of the USA.

If their main factor to decide a cryptocurrency is a security or not, is a centralization or decentalization, how Avalanche is different than other altcoins? It's another joke from SEC.

This.

Today, they might have not labelled it as a security but because there are other coins that they're targeting and prioritizing. But it won't be surprising if they change their decisions and will declare that as a security.

It will be a matter of time but if not then I'm wrong, and congratulations to the holders of it but that doesn't mean that everyone should also buy that coin.

This is 4 or false information. Being decentralized or centralized is not a classification for being a security or not. SEC determine a token as security if there’s a profit involved when they offer the token or simply it works like a stock token that profit sharing to all share holders.

SEC use howey test to determine if the token is security or not which the criteria will put most of the cryptocurrency is indeed a security.

The latest events in the crypto space has only but left every crypto enthusiast in awe, SEC just raises legal concerns over projects they have no idea about simply because they have no control over them. XRP concerns are yet to be concluded, more than a year since the suit was filed. Now, we have them going after leading Exchangers in the space and in the process, names of Projects were mentioned as securities, I will want them to make open the criteria for mentioning those coins/projects as securities, because, if they don't, then, the list of securities isn't exhausted yet, Only time is needed to add Avalanche to the list

I don't think SEC is measuring decentralisation by counting full nodes. There is no doubt, full node count is important for the decentralisation. However, it's not a proof of decentralisation and there is no transparent way to count full nodes and prove their independence. Majority full node could be controlled by one entity. Full node owners might collude and so on. It very easy to forge full node count if you can afford the support of the expensive infrastructure.

I doubt anyone can suggest a transparent legal procedure to assess altcoin decentralisation by counting full nodes unless SEC will obligate full node owners to register themselves and comply with all current and future regulations.

I never saw enough advantage in Avalanche over Ethereum that it would make sense to build a whole new network for it. That just divides the whole crypto community more and makes me think devs just wanted money. What avalanche tries to build could have done on top of eth. Not evertthing needs a new blockchain.

And it isn't security yet. Sec hasn't stated it's not a security. It just wasn't listed, yet.

No doesn't mean it won't. The SEC just hasn't seen avalanche yet. I reckon it'll be labeled as security by the SEC. You make me think of Solana and what it used to be. They've always shouted that there is and sol is not a security, but now the SEC is making it clear if there is and sol is a security. I'm sure that Avalanche is a security and not decentralized..

Solana has a lot more validators than avalanche. It means that sol itself is more decentralized than avalanche. How does Avalanche's lower number of validators make it more decentralized than Solana?? It only has around 1200 validators. What you're talking about seems to be just bullshit.

Avalanche is pretty much the same like solana or ADA that already mentioned in the list of securities tokens by SEC.

Well, there are thousands of altcoins and hundreds of new altcoins created every year. Many of them are listed on CEXs. Obviously, many of them are insufficiently decentralized and could be considered as securities by SEC due to whatever reason. However, SEC has not listed them in the lawsuit.

Does that mean that SEC will not consider them as securities in its future lawsuits?

I don't see much difference between Ethereum and "affected altcoins". I don't think that SEC see this difference either. Could you suggest a theory why SEC shouldn't treat Ethereum and Avalanche as securities? If you believe that SEC finds them "sufficiently decentralized", then, please, share with us the definition of decentralisation used by SEC.

Maybe you have heard about SEC requirements for centralized Altcoins because many Altcoins are operated in a very centralized way.
If such Altcoins are too centralized, it’s not a decentralized cryptocurrency and such centralized Altcoins need to be SEC-registered to meet all requirements for security reasons, like if a big hack occurs at Terra Luna.
In opposite, decentralized cryptocurrencies can’t be hacked in a centralized way because of decentralization.

Here’s a list, which centralized coins are affected:

https://twitter.com/tier10k/status/1666055678610292737

Bitcoin, Ethereum and Avalanche are NOT affected.


SEC doesn’t consider Avalanche a security because Avalanche is a decentralized coin

Avalanche is a very decentralized network, where many people are participating and because of Avalanche’s decentralization. Avalanche has implemented a modern technology, called repeated subsampling, where all nodes can be scaled massively, making Avalanche network very decentralized.
Every coder can set up a node, so it is very decentralized.
Like Ethereum, Avalanche is already decentralized enough to be not considered to register for SEC documents. In opposite, many centralized Altcoins are due to get registered, which can take a long time for such a procedure, where many coins will lose market positions.

Bitcoin, Ethereum and Avalanche are not required to do so.

It is huge bullish news for Ethereum and Avalanche.