Topic: Bitcoin Is Not Crypto, The SEC Confirms (Read 436 times)

The recent statement of SEC regarding Bitcoin suggests that they have no intention to target  Bitcoin, which is undoubtedly good news for Bitcoin enthusiasts. However, you are right that regulatory clarity regarding crypto currencies is still lacking, and numerous cases involving the SEC and crypto currencies may take years to resolve. The rapidly evolving and dynamic nature of technology makes it challenging for SEC to establish a comprehensive legal fame work that effectively addresses all aspects of crypto space.

Yes, it's true. The SEC doesn't consider bitcoin  a security, but it thinks that of most altcoins, not all though. For instance, they said that ETH is probably a security, but couldn't even begin to set up their case against it. The SEC also claimed that XRP is a security, but lost its first court case... The fact that someone is guilty is one thing, whether you can prove it is another. There are no clear rules here and with all this precedence, the cases are going to drag on for years.

If the information you have found is true that sec thinks that Bitcoin is not a crypto then let them think what they think about Bitcoin because it only means that they see Bitcoin as what it is therefore they will say that Bitcoin isn't a crypto. I am also interested to know how other people see Bitcoin if they also think it is a cryptocurrency or not. For me, Bitcoin is a crypto and the first one to have existed and have been used for many years.

Cryptocurrency = Bitcoin  + Altcoins.
Altcoins = Securities + non security tokens
Bitcoin =/ securities
SEC = confusion
SEC = regulation
Regulation = Cryptocurrency
Therefore, SEC is not for Bitcoin

Did we really need a confirmation from the SEC about Bitcoin not being a security? Didn't we know it already as it has been decentralized since its inception? And how does that take Bitcoin out of the cryptocurrency race? It's a digital currency but since it works on cryptography, it's a cryptocurrency, how does that make any sense to not consider Bitcoin a cryptocurrency because it is not a security? Sure it's different from others, but it was the very first cryptocurrency.

I also don't think that we needed the SEC to make such an announcement for Bitcoin to skyrocket or keep moving forward, they've been attacking cryptocurrencies and exchanges for a long time, which might have caused problems for the platforms but it never created many problems for Bitcoin.

I think the main difference between Bitcoin and Alt coins are this....

There are not one identifiable "creator" of this technology, so there are no single authority that can claim ownership of it. The identity of Satoshi Nakamoto has not be "verified" and this "entity" (for the lack of a better description) ...cannot control it's destiny. (There is no leader or figure head to call the shots..)

There are also no pre-mine that benefited a small amount of "creators" of this technology. (Satoshi's coins are untouched)  

He absolutely did, one instance of this can be found in this forum:


The "cryptocurrency" aspect has nothing to do with the level of centralization/decentralization a coin has, but rather the use of cryptographic proof in accounting for a digital currency. Some cryptocurrencies are less centralized than others; Bitcoin being toward the very end of the least centralized. Furthermore, there are different ways to measure decentralization:

- node count
- miner count
- distribution of hash rate among mining pools
- geographic distribution of nodes/miners

So, if SEC considers bitcoin decentralized digital cash, what rules of regulation is ready to apply to this type of assets? I understand bitcoin is one of a kind due to this unique status.

The lack of a "safety" qualification means that there is no way for the regulator to control this, while all other "safe" currencies can be influenced by government agencies. In my opinion, this is like a quality mark for bitcoin.

They think bitcoin doesn't meet the security's criteria, which is good. The BTC-community can easily do without it.

Those who are members of the SEC consist of people with above average abilities who can distinguish the good from the best.
I am happy that the SEC can differentiate between Bitcoin and crypto. I'm also happy because the author of the article can explain to the reader the meaning of Bitcoin not crypto at the beginning.

From what I've read, the thousands of cryptocurrencies available on the market are those who want to develop their own system. Their thinking as the owner of thousands of cryptos cannot profit personally if they continue to be one idea with the basic idea of Bitcoin.

This title is misleading. Bitcoin is a crypto but it’s different compared to most other cryptos. Cryptos such as Bitcoin, Litecoin , Dogecoin, etc are pure POW coins. There was no premine and the way people got coins was by mining them instead of purchasing them unlike most tokens.

Since most tokens like XRP you couldn’t mine only purchase directly from the developer, they are considered securities. Most tokens listed on exchanges are like this. Back in 2015, most tokens were POW then when ETH erc20 came out everything changed.

"Crypto" has been a shorthand for "cryptography" for a very long time, long before Bitcoin was created. And cryptographers started to get very annoyed when cryptocurrency enthusiasts appropriated their slang word.


This is not Bitcoin- or cryptocurrency-related, just an example that "crypto" meant only cryptography back then.


I think it's crucial that beginners and people from the outside should know right from the start that Bitcoin and altcoins have very different properties. And putting them together under the "crypto" umbrella is counterproductive for this purpose, because it creates a sense of equality between them.

Wanted to chime in, but you said all of the things I wanted to. Neither satoshi nor the white paper are guilty of hyperbole -- the hallmark of everything else (yes, including and in particular Ethereum earlier on).

I do think "crypto" (cryptocurrency) is a fair normie description for what Bitcoin is though, with the cabeat that Bitcoin really is different from the rest.

it looks like the SEC is really taking cryptocurrencies seriously and especially Bitcoin. maybe they would talk about different views on Bitcoin if Satoshi wasn't anonymous. I mean Sam Bankman's FTT token (FTX). Vitalik with ETH. Justin Sun with TRX. and also BNB by CZ. The SEC may be very concerned about how the involvement of the founders as one of the reasons that allows market manipulation of the ownership of the assets of the owners.
I think the SEC is trying to think more rationally about their views on Bitcoin and Cryptocurrencies.

I have to deal with the SEC on a regular basis working in finance, and they are a bunch of fucks let me tell ya (not nearly as bad as FINRA however).  Anyways, finally they get something right.  It's true, bitcoin is very different from most coins.  Most coins (shitcoins) realize that they can't compete with bitcoin on any level when it comes to being a coin that has it's same features just better, so they have to do something to attract customers, and that's when they turn their coins in to securities.  Honestly regulation was well over-needed in this space.

They can't get anything with Bitcoin. If the SEC can target Bitcoin, they can easily attack new cryptocurrency projects. According to Op, the SEC does not intend to stop crypto, but rather manipulate the market on occasion. There is so much news about the SEC that it has a significant impact on market prices, similar to what happened previously with XRP. Binance has also faced numerous charges, yet it is still operational and capable of carrying out its normal functions.

I doubt that this is the best solution reached by the SEC to define a definition that is consistent with its vision, especially since it is unable to fit it with the centralization that characterizes its policies. In this way, it will be easy to contain Bitcoin and recognize its eligibility.
I also suspect that the same definition could include dollar-backed stablecoins.

But this is supposed to include other cryptocurrencies that have the same characteristics. There are fully decentralized currencies that have the popularity that qualifies them to have an important place in the currency market. The first coin that comes to mind is a Dodge coin that could be included under the same definition.

I get the sense it was appropriated from an even earlier time than the onslaught of the alts.  I can find forum conversations in 2010 relating to Bitcoin where the parlance appears to be in use, but on first glance it may be more of a shorthand for "cryptography", rather than "cryptocurrency":  https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/building-a-dedicated-super-node-crypto-accelerator-cards-etc-115

Here's an archive.org link for the hardware linked in that 2010 post if anyone was curious.  They really did call their product "Crypto Accelerator 6000":  https://web.archive.org/web/20100324125628/https://www.oracle.com/us/products/servers-storage/networking/031146.htm

Regardless of what SEC and other centralised institutes say about Bitcoin the reality is Bitcoin is truly a decentralised cryptocurrency that cant be controlled or manipulated by any centralised institute like SEC itself. The SEC has valid reason to show dis stress in Bitcoin since they are able to control it in its decentralised nature. I find my Bitcoin more secure then my fiat which is constantly going down in value.   

Bitcoin is a cryptocurrency although some people want to classify it differently. I'm not sure why someone would say that bitcoin is not crypto, of course because I don't see bitcoin as something that can separate it from crypto. Just because bitcoin has a high market cap and is one of the pioneers of decentralized currencies, it does not fully qualify to call it non-crypto.

The beginning of the article stated about Bitcoin maximalist referring Bitcoin to be different from other cryptocurrency and stating the Bitcoin infact is not crypto at all.  I think this is where @OP become fixated when he wrote his thread title,


I agree, it was clear in the article that the topic title is just clickbait so that it gains more interest from the reader but the discussion in that article is more on Bitcoin being not a security and how it is different from other cryptocurrencies that is being labeled a security.


Bitcoin and Gold do have similarities but most financial institutions believe that Bitcoin is weak as a store of value because of its high volatility.  this is also one reason why financial institution does not consider BTC as money because it fails in one of the properties of money which is stability.[1]

---

[1] https://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/money.asp

"Crypto" is not a sign of decentralization, most coins these days rely on a small team of developers and their network designs tend to be heavily centralized.

Satoshi never used the word "cryptocurrency" or "crypto" (aside from cryptography). This word got invented when altcoins started emerging. And altcoins are like parasites, they don't like to call themselves altcoins, they call themselves crypto, because crypto means "Bitcoin + altcoins", and it's hard to criticize Bitcoin.

So, stopping calling Bitcoin "crypto" is a good idea, it would separate Bitcoin from alts.

You are absolutely right in comparing Bitcoin to Gold, as both assets share common characteristic, such as scarcity and store of value with the potential to act as potential hedge against inflation. The increasing interest from big institutional players in Bitcoin are indeed significant developments, and indicate growing mainstream adoption. We might see substantial buying activity in Bitcoin market, in case Blackrock ETF is approved in mid August, by SEC.

It's because they haven't seen crypto in the last 10 years and it's just perhaps after the huge exposure of bitcoin starting from 2017 that SEC takes notice. And it took them years to realised or deem Bitcoin as not crypto.

In any case, they really have to upgrade everything now as crypto is here to stay, specially altcoin markets.

They really need to put people that its knowledgable to crypto space and not just old and traditional economist to chair SEC.

I don't know what SEC has been for over 14 years when just know that fact of bitcoin. And what makes me laugh is SEC really doesn't know the meaning of crypto. Maybe they think centralization like USDT, USDC, and others is real crypto before, and assume Ripple is just like those tokens. and after reviewing and researching they find the fact, that Ripple and Bitcoin are really decentralized. But we don't know what their plan is, SEC is a big institution, there's no way he doesn't know that fact. I think they already bought some bitcoin, and try to create FOMO in the market.

I haven't read or heard the full announcement relating to this but I don't think this is what the SEC is saying. Did the SEC say Bitcoin is not crypto? Or did it only say Bitcoin is not a security?

Bitcoin is a cryptocurrency. I guess that is obvious. I know there are many Bitcoin supporters, especially those who shun other cryptocurrencies, who avoid calling Bitcoin a cryptocurrency probably because they don't want it to be categorized with the rest of what they generally label as shitcoins or scam.

I don't agree with them. Bitcoin is a digital currency which uses cryptography for secured transactions. If there are others who created other cryptocurrencies that are of poor quality, it doesn't follow that Bitcoin ceases to be a cryptocurrency.

I mean, I find funny the "according to them" part: they set those parameters, clearly bitcoin can't fit there, everybody knew that and yet they were somehow fudding giving the impression that maybe bitcoin, at the end, could actually be a security. That's always been impossible, anyway it's nice to finally have a confirmation.

It's as though somewhere along the line, "crypto" somehow became a word to substitute in place of "shitcoin that isn't worth naming" and some strange people now believe it to be a derogatory term.  I don't know when this happened and I definitely don't understand it. 

I accept crypto as either shorthand for cryptocurrency. or as a description for the general environment in which cryptocurrencies exist.  As such, Bitcoin is a cryptocurrency and exists within the crypto-space.


Also, people need to stop acting like the SEC matters to ~96% of the world.  It's really not that important unless you're an American. 

Well, there was this interesting point on a particular social media by some people who prefer not to call Bitcoin crypto. They wanted Bitcoin to be special or different while the name "Crypto" should be for the rest of cryptocurrencies(altcoins). Maybe they forgot that the word "crypto" was derived from cryptocurrency which all the cryptocurrencies are entitled to... , so I didn't take their talk too seriously and still prefer to use both Bitcoin and crypto interchangeably, or Crypto being the general word. If they want uniqueness, the words True Crypto should do that, while the rest, but a very few, could be called false cryptos.
So, it's like Op is saying "Bitcoin is not Altcoins" or Bitcoin is special and not like the rest... assuming he/she is part of those group of thinkers

AS I read the article, I can't see anywhere that the SEC stated that Bitcoin is not Crypto rather they clearly stated that Bitcoin unlike the majority of cryptocurrency is not a security because Bitcoin does not meet the requirement to be called a "security".  I believe the article stated that it was the Bitcoin maximalist that wanted to make Bitcoin different and make it apart from other cryptocurrency.

Aside from that the article is discussing about Bitcoin being not a security and the reason behind it is not a security. I believe the title of the article is a bit off from its body that discusses Bitcoin, unlike the majority of cryptocurrencies, is not a security.

These are not the only few factors on which they have declared it not a security because other than BTC there are four or five more cryptocurrencies are declared as not Securities by them But as i said before BTC is the king so all eyes on me/BTC.

OP has made mistake while writing the title as in the post he confirmed that SEC said that BTC is not a Security but in the title Op said BTC is not a crypto. I think OP didn't able to differentiate between these two terms. Well, And the OP is a little bit late too as this news was already shared here before like yesterday. So, Op is launching the rocket a little bit late.

BTC is a leading and the king Coin in Cryptocurrency and that's what many other members has emphasized for Dear OP.

how about the other cryptocurrency (Altcoins) that they think had securities because their CEOs where known, what have they (SEC) done after some of those projects collapsed? Was every investor's fund refunded? At least every or most Bitcoin users know the risks of crypto. We know that Bitcoin's author is not known but Bitcoin is still the best among other cryptocurrencies.

Who is we?
You and some poor $5 per article blogger who does only clickbait titles?


Oh god, there are more of you?
Do you people even think one second before typing?


The author is an imbecile!
The correct title is that Bitcoin is not like the other cryptos or that cryptos =/=bitcoin!


What the idiot tried to say was that Bitcoin is not a shitcoin, not that bitcoin is not a cryptographic currency.

Bitcoin is simply not a centralized crypto. It's decentralized, governed by fair rules, with its decentralized participants, rather than just a central figure, monitoring the network and enforcing the rules.  So, there needs to be enough honest Network participants to make sure the rules are obeyed. . It'll be hard to violate the rules if there are many eyes watching and enforcing them. Things can easily go wrong if one or few people (who could mostly be dishonest or evil) are monitoring a large network and enforcing its rules. Which is why people should be careful with centralized cryptocurrencies as they are designed to have one or few people watching and enforcing their rules. This is why they need government enforcement or be outrightly banned.

Wow, that is something good from the SEC side for us but it seems bad news for the SEC themselves. Isn’t this is true? SEC always wanted to brush down the use of Bitcoin but now it seems as per their own definition Bitcoin is in a escape pod ready to shoot to new multi verse. Imagine how it will benefit the individuals and institutional investors on international scales now.

I think this changes everything for the corporate worlds too and banks too. If it’s not a security then there is no rule on it that means anyone can use it the way they want?

Bitcoin is as good as gold! In fact, its even more scarce. The SEC is embracing bitcoin because they have no other option but to if they want to get in on the action! The Blackrock ETF news is huge, finally they have accepted this. Hopefully we will see some movement soon, with this halving coming up it could get a little turbulent for BTC but definitely due time to CRUSH THESE ATHs! Lets break 100k savvy!?

They should know before hand that Bitcoin is a community driving asset and nobody has the soul autonomy over it. The founder did hand it over to the masses and left anonymously which made it very difficult for him to be spotted. So therefore, no single individual would claim to have invented the Bitcoin without proof attached. It is decentralised because of the nature and how the founder wanted it to be so that the masses could be in control of it and not a single individual.

Bitcoin is Bitcoin, unique and you can talk about Bitcoin as simple as that.

Is it a commodity?
Is it a security?
Is it a whatever term will be called in future?

It is not big deal if we can use Bitcoin in whatever ways and use cases we want. Freedom to use it and freedom to call it, it is Bitcoin.

SEC. can submit legislation to change their policies and regulations so what they consider Bitcoin is today might be no longer valid and applicable in future.

But I have my strong belief that no one, no government, no agency will be able to completely ban and kill Bitcoin.

Recognizing the unique characteristic of Bitcoin is highly promising  development, as it could open the door for many EFTs applicants including BlackRock to gain approval from SEC. This approval has the potential to act as a catalyst, triggering significant buying activity  in Bitcoin market. It appears as prominent investors are waiting for this approval to take entry in market.

The SEC distinguishing between Bitcoin and altcoins isn't news, and they've just reiterated their position once again. It also seems to me that the article's author on Forbes simply make a clickbait title because nowhere in the article does the SEC actually say that Bitcoin isn't crypto. It is said that it's not a security, and other cryptos are considered securities by the SEC, but that's a totally different thing from saying Bitcoin isn't crypto.
But my question is why Bitcoin is taxed as an asset in the US, despite the SEC rightfully considering it more of a currency than an asset. Shouldn't Bitcoin be tax-free, then, the way fiat is? There's still income tax, of course, but that's a different thing.

Op I must say the truth, I don't understand you and US SEC. How on Earth someone would come and tell me that bitcoin is not cryptocurrency. Okay let us look it from the General English Perspective. Cryptocurrency is the general name given to all those coins that in the blockchain and bitcoin is also one of them. Now bitcoin is the particular name given to a coin among other coins in the blockchain, therefore, bitcoin is also a cryptocurrency. And the way I am looking at it, since the SEC could not control or do anything to bitcoin upon all their trials they have to come up with a statement that will make people to believe that bitcoin is not bad as other altcoins.

When Bitcoin came into existence, Gary Gensler has not even had dream that a day will come to be US SEC chairman, if his predecessor didn't recognized bitcoin as security or crypto or whatever he choose to call it, he should have known better to live bitcoin alone from the genesis. Bitcoin never did an ICO, never sold any token, never did a public offering. All the altcoins are responsible for these creativities, they should deal with it instead of bringing bitcoin along any time they tried to fight the crypto communities they feel they can toy around anytime they like.

Bitcoin sentiments aside, Isn't obvious that the US government holds bitcoin as well, I expect them to play by politics and their own rule in other to stay ahead of other investors, they have thousands of bitcoin under their custody that they are yet to sell because they see the vision of satoshi that is why they are yet to offload this Bitcoin on the market, just 2 days ago the court freed SBF of his crime for donating Bitcoin to the politicians. If that had happened to be outside the US, they will never allow the public to rest with their useless headlines and crypto hunts.

I wonder what crypto actually means for different people. It seems like the writer, the SEC, communities, and so on have different interpretations, allowing them to frame what SEC did according to their point of view. One of the implicit assumptions is that crypto is security as mentioned above, where does this idea come from? I always thought crypto was just a digital asset that used cryptography to secure its blocks. It looks like there is a new narrative that aims to lump crypto and security together from its definition.

This reminds me of the similar thread created by bitmover here https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/sec-asked-coinbase-to-halt-trading-in-everything-except-bitcoin-ceo-says-5461609 the world is getting used to the system and the bitcoin network is more acceptable by many who had thought of it rejection right from the start which begins with the government, but now that they are adopting and are seing the advantage bitcoin could actually bring, they have no option than to voice out and single handedly identify bitcoin from other cryptocurrencies for overall adoption.

Sometimes you can just laugh here at Sec, because Bitcoin has existed in this business industry for more than a decade, don't say that they just realized that Bitcoin is not crypto. And the cryptocurrency is those who imitate the nature of Bitcoin which is the reason why Bitcoin is more popular and is even happening now especially in the future.
But that's okay and the Sec knows that Bitcoin is very different from other crypto's. Good news for me, nice moved SEC😊

Bitcoin is not Crypto, we know that for years. Bitcoin is a decentralized currency, that allows you to be your own bank. Don't have to rely on anyone to process a transaction if you can setup your own node to process it for you. SEC understood it now, and what's going to happen? Distinguish Bitcoin from other shitcoins in the market. They will surely accept everything related to Bitcoin and declare it the official currency of the US, if not the world.

Well finally SEC got the real idea behind the creation of Bitcoin and that's a really good news. Bitcoin is actually decentralized digital cash but due to many factors it can be used as the best asset to gain profits for the long term. Look the fiat based cash system won't give us a lot of profits because the fiat based currencies can go down in value anytime while the Bitcoin is a sure way to be profitable for those who want to hold it for long periods.

I also agree that other crypto-currencies are only there because of Bitcoin and they don't really have anything special other than the features they have. A currency doesn't get worthy because of its features, but it gets worthy when people find it as a valuable form to trade good with it. Although, I agree that most of the crypto-currencies can be used for the purpose of trading goods but none of them can come close to Bitcoin when the matter is about decentralization.

I hope that SEC and other governmental bodies will soon accept that Bitcoin is the cash of future, and the future economies will be run by Bitcoin or at least they will implement Bitcoin along with the fiat based system. The future of Bitcoin is very bright and those who are aware about Bitcoin will be among the knowledgeable generation of the coming decades. I love Bitcoin and seeing a news like this always makes me happy. I wish that Bitcoin may grow to very high values in future, and more and more businesses should implement it as an acceptable form of payment.

Your interpretation may differ from the actual interpretation of the contents of the article you share.
It is very clear that Bitcoin is a cryptocurrency that can be used as an investment asset and this Forbes article with the title Bitcoin Is Not Crypto, The SEC Confirms appeared today following the statement by The US Securities and Exchange Commission requesting Coinbase stop trading cryptocurrencies other than Bitcoin which was published on July 31 with the title SEC asked Coinbase to halt trading in everything except bitcoin, CEO says.
The SEC's request to stop trading other than Bitcoin will raise various views from people and one of them comes from Martin Leo Rivers who is named a Contributor in the Forbes article.

Bitcoin is not crypto in my opinion because Bitcoin is a coin that has a clear vision among thousands of altcoin projects.

But SEC is just one entity, bitcoin still has to get on the good side of the government and the regulatory commissions in many countries right? I don't know why people still care about what the SEC has to say, it's not like they can a thing about it besides making strict regulations towards bitcoin which I'm sure of isn't going to affect the market for a long time. Can someone tell me more why we should care about this news and does it affect the price in a positive way?

Well let them change their standards then according to Bitcoin !!! Perhaps one day All criteria will be made according to Bitcoin.

Basically, these are the reasons they mention "decentralized nature, market cap, and lack of involvement by its founder" These are the same reasons that make users trust Bitcoin and prefer it over fiat.

The SEC nonsense never ends. They make a lot of noise and clamor for or without even a reason, and the funny thing is that every time they fail, if they had some shame, they would stop their failed attempts and stay away from Bitcoin.

I am confused and skeptical about what is happening, because the SEC is trying to attack the entire crypto industry, but they are always making statements that assert bitcoin is not a security. Is it really that they can't control it, they don't know who the founder is, so they decided to ignore bitcoin? If so will they accept bitcoin and allow us to use bitcoin without any regulation? Is the SEC or the government really that good? This is good news for bitcoin lovers but they can change their minds anytime, so I won't believe what they say.

The SEC never made such claim. I know some people want to put bitcoin in a different category as other cryptocurrencies (rightfully so, because they're made for different purposes), but I doesn't change the fact that bitcoin is indeed a cryptocurrency.

Bitcoin is a cryptocurrency.
Bitcoin isn't an altcoins.
Bitcoin isn't a security or commodity, but it because most of people use Bitcoin as this one.

If Bitcoin isn't crypto, then it's nothing difference with the centralized fiat because the new innovation in Bitcoin as a decentralized currency is using cryptography.

Security =/= Crypto

Not being a security does not mean it's not a crypto. Bitcoin is a crypto cause it is decentralized but not a security so it's not directly regulated by the SEC.

These are not the main factors that distinguishes Bitcoin from securities.
A security is an asset which tries to raise capital in exchange such as when a new token runs an IDO or ICO.

Haha, You are counting T-minus 10 as you are on time. You just heard the news and decided to post it here without knowing that this news has already been shared here. So, i think someone else's rocket is already launched and BTC hit 29,900$ just today morning. And now coming back to earth. hehe.

And your title seems a little bit off because Bitcoin is not the only coin which they had declared as not a security there are other 4 tokens too exists which are crypto but not security. But, i like your optimism toward this news. All i am seeing is BTC is just cooking right now and once the time will come it will blow.

Institutional investors have been treating Bitcoin as if it was never considered to be a security for a long time now. But I am pleasantly surprised that the US Government admitted they can't get a regulational grip around Bitcoin. And look at that, they even listed the reasons... I do not expect this news to pump Bitcoin all too much, but what does this mean for the future of Bitcoin ETFs? Are we seeing the SEC giving everyone the go-ahead on a Bitcoin ETF? Because that could very well pump Bitcoin past the moon and towards mars.

Let them be, how? I don't think there has been any form of direct attack from the SEC on Bitcoin recently, at least none that I am aware of. Since they don't have a CEO, they can sue and invite someone over to list out the charges that have been made against them. It's just individuals who are holders of Bitcoin that are being attacked, not Bitcoin; the price of Bitcoin just gets affected based on the fuzz they might end up causing with their attack on big names.



Digital money. 
Based on their rating, Bitcoin lacks all the features that make it appear to be a security token since it's being calculated based on the involvement of the team behind the project in terms of decision-making. Leaving them with doubt that the team is benefiting largely from their investors in many ways, including exploitation using different methods, which include market manipulation and rug pulling. Those kinds of things can't be done with Bitcoin.
 
It could be seen as digital money by the SEC based on the value and use case people have placed on it, which is major as a means of exchange, and it can cover up all kinds of financial transactions.

If I see from the headline the news is interesting. Well, if we look at the contents of the article you submitted, both discuss views on cryptocurrencies and Of course both focus on Bitcoin, where as Bitcoin maximalists believe that BTC is the only cryptocurrency with true value, while the SEC still has concerns about the proliferation of fraudulent cryptocurrencies and exploitative in the market whether BTC will maintain its dominant position in the long term or not as well as in an effort to protect consumers from fraudulent projects, their version (SEC). To me, this still seems reasonable because the crypto market continues to grow and develop over time.

This is not new, Gensler made this clear long ago. Look at this article from more than a year ago:

SEC’s Gensler Reiterates Bitcoin Alone Is a Commodity. Is He Right?

I believe that this distinction is the real one, and that it is in the interest of bitcoiners for it to be so, not squaring with Gensler's view the recent ruling on Ripple, which has been discussed in another forum thread:

SEC appeals XRP ruling

In my opinion, bitcoin is a commodity because it does not depend on a central authority that can issue as many bitcoins as it wants, basically.

It's a great news the Security and Exchange Commission (SEC) are now seeing Bitcoin for what it is, the fact that Bitcoin has been distinguished from other coins/tokens by the SEC itself shows the word its supreme  and trusted, and this might lead to acceptance of Bitcoin in some Nation.
They went further to tell coinbase to delist other coins and tagged them as securities

I am glad they know the difference, so they should let Bitcoin be.

Bitcoin did not need any of the security they applied to other cryptocurrencies because they can not control Bitcoin due its decentralized nature.


Which criteria again Bitcoin needs to fit in?

Bitcoin has been in existence since 2009 and everything was going well, therefore, I don’t think any news from SEC related to Bitcoin security important to me because I feel it is because they have nothing to do about Bitcoin to make it centralized.

The SEC distinguishes Bitcoin from other cryptocurrencies and considers it to be a decentralized digital cash, exempting it from the classification of "security" that applies to many other tokens.

Bitcoin, due to its decentralized nature, market cap, and lack of involvement by its founder, does not fit the criteria of a security according to them.

Strap in boys and girls. Space shuttle launch in T-minus 10 and counting...

Source: https://www.forbes.com/sites/martinrivers/2023/07/31/bitcoin-is-not-crypto-the-sec-confirms/