Topic: Saylor thinks ETH post-merge on Proof-of-Stake is a security. (Read 197 times)
And so it begins, the first tokens (AMP, RLY, DDX, XYO, RGT, LCX, POWR, DFX, and KROM) are classed as securities.
https://coingeek.com/sec-labels-9-tokens-as-securities-in-coinbase-insider-trading-scandal/
When the price of ETH goes up, and there is nothing stopping ETH from being secure, Saylor will eat is words. However, we do not have that right now, proof of stake is not here yet, and that is why everyone can say whatever they want and nothing will happen. What we need right now is having something more important done. And that will only happen when the price of ethereum changes.
Let’s wait for the ETH 2.0 situation to happen and after that is done, we are going to be able to say something about it. Just wait, do not get involved with anyone, do not argue with anyone, hold to your guns and wait for it to happen. I also accumulate more ETH during this process as well.
Let’s wait for the ETH 2.0 situation to happen and after that is done, we are going to be able to say something about it. Just wait, do not get involved with anyone, do not argue with anyone, hold to your guns and wait for it to happen. I also accumulate more ETH during this process as well.
Saylor thinks ETH post-merge on Proof-of-Stake is a security.
I think Saylor's a lil jelly tbh.
Thoughts?
I think Ethereum is safe because big bankers own most of the coins. As long as they need this project, it is safe. Even the SEC will not be able to do anything with their claims. But most other projects are under threat, because the regulator can recognize them as shares and impose a fine on them. I think Saylor's a lil jelly tbh.
Thoughts?
Saylor thinks ETH post-merge on Proof-of-Stake is a security.
I think Saylor's a lil jelly tbh.
Thoughts?
I don't know how the idea comes to mind, but that's just ridiculous just because Ethereum moving to PoS, wont make ETH become security. ETH still has utility and people are still using ETH on the Ethereum smart contract, thus make it commodity. It's not just a piece of paper that says you own something. I think Saylor's a lil jelly tbh.
Thoughts?
This means if we have ETH 2.0 and proof of stake there, and if we have a bull run at the same time, there could be a ton of money going into ETH, not saying it will be at the top and take bitcoins place, but it would go up a lot. This means that some money that could have gone to bitcoin and make Saylor richer, would end up in ETH and he doesn't want that to happen right now.
Saylor thinks ETH post-merge on Proof-of-Stake is a security.
I think Saylor's a lil jelly tbh.
Thoughts?
I don't know how the idea comes to mind, but that's just ridiculous just because Ethereum moving to PoS, wont make ETH become security. ETH still has utility and people are still using ETH on the Ethereum smart contract, thus make it commodity. It's not just a piece of paper that says you own something. I think Saylor's a lil jelly tbh.
Thoughts?
This means if we have ETH 2.0 and proof of stake there, and if we have a bull run at the same time, there could be a ton of money going into ETH, not saying it will be at the top and take bitcoins place, but it would go up a lot. This means that some money that could have gone to bitcoin and make Saylor richer, would end up in ETH and he doesn't want that to happen right now.
Saylor thinks ETH post-merge on Proof-of-Stake is a security.
I think when Ethereum moves to PoS and all these ethereum 1.0 clones rise up that actually have value, we're going to see a lot of analysis arguing that non-security tokens are exempt from being treated as security.
Saylor thinks ETH post-merge on Proof-of-Stake is a security.
I think Saylor's a lil jelly tbh.
Thoughts?
I think Saylor's a lil jelly tbh.
Thoughts?
I don't know how the idea comes to mind, but that's just ridiculous just because Ethereum moving to PoS, wont make ETH become security. ETH still has utility and people are still using ETH on the Ethereum smart contract, thus make it commodity. It's not just a piece of paper that says you own something.
The law states what is and what is not a security, Dont matter what someone thinks.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.60563856
Saylor thinks ETH post-merge on Proof-of-Stake is a security.
I think Saylor's a lil jelly tbh.
Thoughts?
I think Saylor's a lil jelly tbh.
Thoughts?
I don't know how the idea comes to mind, but that's just ridiculous just because Ethereum moving to PoS, wont make ETH become security. ETH still has utility and people are still using ETH on the Ethereum smart contract, thus make it commodity. It's not just a piece of paper that says you own something.
I think he is just telling facts. What is wrong with it?
I am not a fan and not a Bitcoin maximalist as I also have Ethereum in my stocks and some other coins that I think have great features even if they are POS.
If ever this statement will help another being to understand what security and other stuff about investment are then so be it.
It's actually the first time I heard about those and I learned a lot already. I am not deep about investment fundaments, etc.. but it made me read some things that I have not bumped into.
I am not a fan and not a Bitcoin maximalist as I also have Ethereum in my stocks and some other coins that I think have great features even if they are POS.
If ever this statement will help another being to understand what security and other stuff about investment are then so be it.
It's actually the first time I heard about those and I learned a lot already. I am not deep about investment fundaments, etc.. but it made me read some things that I have not bumped into.
Its not just Saylor who said ETH to be a security its not that he is finding flaws to ETH but does it mean that ETH will be highly regulated by the SEC?
The context that Saylor talked about is Senator Lummis's bill that deems Ethereum and Bitcoin as a commodity, whereas it will fall onto Commodities Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) regulation. Saylor's opinion which you can see on the Youtube link I posted on my first post of this thread, argues that Ethereum is more suitable to be deemed as security, whereas according to the bill it will be regulated by SEC.
Saylor is just using an old argument among many many old arguments of Proof of Stake.
I am not a fan,,, I like PoW and the arguments of energy are mostly invalid,,, because they always ignored the benefits and the cost of other existing systems. But this does not automatically make me a fan of Saylor.
I am not a fan,,, I like PoW and the arguments of energy are mostly invalid,,, because they always ignored the benefits and the cost of other existing systems. But this does not automatically make me a fan of Saylor.
Its not just Saylor who said ETH to be a security its not that he is finding flaws to ETH but does it mean that ETH will be highly regulated by the SEC?
If this is going to be where ETH is going, Vitalik must be making a big mistake in trying to merge and make it POS. POS is also very vulnerable to manipulation when the biggest institutions are going to be in the crypto markets.
The Howey Test
The present legal standard in the US for determining whether something is a security is summarized in the Howey Test.
According to the Howey Test, if the thing meets all the following criteria, it is a security.
- It is an investment of money
- In a common enterprise
- With an expectation of profits
- Predominantly from the efforts of others
The only digital asset that is not a security is one that satisfies both the following two conditions:
(1) is based on genuine Proof-of-Work (POW); and
(2) has a locked base protocol according to the law.
I think it is not such a big deal. I mean Saylor is a great investor and whatever he says, fine in my book. Doesn't mean that I will follow whatever he says, of course I still hold my ETH and I hope to god one day I would have 32 ETH so I could stake it eventually when that happens. But that doesn't mean that I will go out against Saylor and say anything mean about him neither. This is the dude that helped the crypto world break into the wall street world.
If he could help us get that much bigger, with billions, then I would support him no matter what. That is of course resulting with me not believing or agreeing on stuff he says, and still do not say he is wrong, just moving on without disagreeing.
If he could help us get that much bigger, with billions, then I would support him no matter what. That is of course resulting with me not believing or agreeing on stuff he says, and still do not say he is wrong, just moving on without disagreeing.
Sounds like Saylor doesn't know how security is defined nor anyone should think he is an expert of any of this. But that's what you get for interviewing a bitcoin maximalist. Obviously they are going to trash anything that's not BTC
So how should security be defined in relation to the statement that ETH is a commodity? Saylor has already given his opinion about it and enumerated the reasons why he thinks it's a security. You should refute his arguments instead of dismissing it as anti-altcoin sentiment since he's a bitcoin maxi.
Can you upgrade gold to version 2.0 ?
No because it is a commodity and did not get issued by someone with a ico.
No because it is a commodity and did not get issued by someone with a ico.
I wonder, if you suggest to Saylor to transfer his favorite bitcoin to PoS, will he also say that it will be safe? 
Most likely yes (after he did the swap). Its just business too for Saylor, an investment that is been waiting to pop up. Of course he is after the gains, so if this to happen he will defend it like how he did on btc. Shill on his twitter and make a myday post about it. But I doubt he is gonna do that but stick to btc as its more safer net for him. 
Sounds like Saylor doesn't know how security is defined nor anyone should think he is an expert of any of this. But that's what you get for interviewing a bitcoin maximalist. Obviously they are going to trash anything that's not BTC
I'm not sure about Proof-of-Stake being more secure, just as it would be more decentralized. Delegated PoS will clearly be to the detriment of those characteristics. Most likely after the merger ETH will face a number of problems related just to centralization and vulnerabilities, there are already quite a few analytical parses on this issue. I wonder, if you suggest to Saylor to transfer his favorite bitcoin to PoS, will he also say that it will be safe?
Jump to: