Topic: SEC announces that ETH is not a security (Read 1837 times)
after all the hoo haa. its all end with silence. after so many months, SEC still havent come out a conclusion.
I don't know if this is a good news or not i need some one to interpret that for me. I get that they are decentralized and i don't know it implications
The core is that the SEC supports once on the system developed by Bitcoin and Ethereum.This coin keuda is always in the ICO and is the main choice for ICO payments, with a high level of security, Bitcoin and Ethereum are still open to the SEC.
SEC it is not only one government regulator in the world. SEC only for US territory and citizens. Moreover it is the decision for current moment and this can be changed anytime, if it will be needed for government.
Security Exchange Commission is a government agency that handles the investments and corporations in the Philippines, I think the lost of its written contract in each transaction gives them a no security investment.
I believe any invest can’t guaranty you success. Ethereum is one of the best crypto currency after bitcoin. Peoples are investing on this project and they earn profit. That’s why i think ethereum is safe for invest.
Basically crypto market is fully decentralized based on this the crypto market has less chances of hack or any problems but in here scams are available so this scams should be ignore because it may cause of loss and this topic is really interesting but I don’t think eth is scam but we should know the proper reasons.
I don't completely agree with this. Bitcoin and Ether are to some extent trustworthy cryptocurrency in the market. The ICOs are scammy these days and it is hard to detect which ones are genuine..
Basically I don’t think that eth is unsecured based on SEC I don’t know the main reason why they are telling like this but most of the people now invest their money in here also they are giving good profit may there any 3rd party who wants to collapse this position but I don’t think about it.
I am also confused, how the security criteria they mean?
maybe they will make their own market and also their own coins or tokens according to their wishes.
I am sure the SEC will not solve the problem, but they will create confusion and new problems in the world of crypto.
maybe they will make their own market and also their own coins or tokens according to their wishes.
I am sure the SEC will not solve the problem, but they will create confusion and new problems in the world of crypto.
I am hope ful after getting this news that now the prices will soon be recovered. If SEC if regulating cryptocurrency fairly then it will certainly be positive and more countries may also allow it in their country after being regulated. Regulation is better than ban after all.
I don't think this will affect the real users of Ethereum. Ethereum's features are attracting the investors gradually.
It is heard that, it has been declared by the ICOs and the SEC that ETH and bitcoin are not security. SEC will take control of the ICOs which are security mainly.
I was about to post this. In my book, this proves two thing:
1) That someone within the government or at least enough influence to impact's the SEC decision on deciding if Ethereum is a security or not, is bagholding massive bags of Ethereum (maybe not proves, but definitely strengthens this conspiracy theory)
1) That someone within the government or at least enough influence to impact's the SEC decision on deciding if Ethereum is a security or not, is bagholding massive bags of Ethereum (maybe not proves, but definitely strengthens this conspiracy theory)
*They* are also bagholding bitcoin. I'm pretty sure banks invest in crypto meanwhile they said people to stay away from it // "invest in gold, silver, forex... cryptomarket is a dangerous snake"
Quote
2) That the altcoin bubble has just begun and will continue growing for a long time until something really bad happens technologically in any of the top 10 altcoins, when that happens a mass exodus into Bitcoin will ensue.
The altcoins just wait for the next generation, maybe TON will show the future with a real daily use.
But we all knew Bitcoin is not a security and it would look ridiculous if the claimed otherwise for whatever reason. Now with ETH you have to make an exercise in stretching out law interpretation in order to not classify it as a security ("it was a security in t0, then in t1 it was not a security..."). Im not sure about that but it is what it is and that's what they've decided.
I don't know what TON is but upon a fast research looks like Telegram devs jumping on the blockchain bandwagon. I don't know if they can deliver a solid product but I don't see an obvious reason for governments wanting to cold storage that token nonetheless, unless they see something exploitable by being 51%+ whales.
Yes, TON will be the 2D blockchain within Telegram, they already raised 1.7 billion on pre-sale 1 and 2 then closed the ICO to avoid problem with the SEC.
If you want to take a look : https://www.docdroid.net/JtdY7Jg/ton.pdf (this is the technical part).
And here is the whitepaper, less interesting in my point of view : https://icorating.com/upload/whitepaper/gNQ7e9z3lCGi519Wz8mmC0Kg8aA0goeZKAQ802vo.pdf
Anyway, if it's not them it will be another one, they will show the road for the crypto daily use. That's what we are all waiting for.
yeah!!!
this is a really big great news!
Ethereum, ICOs and other cryptos must be regulated with brand new laws!
A new paradigm is born, regulators can't say the contrary!
this is a really big great news!
Ethereum, ICOs and other cryptos must be regulated with brand new laws!
A new paradigm is born, regulators can't say the contrary!
This news are good, also SEC said that Bitcoin is not securities. But tokens that made ICO on Ethereum platform are securities... And it can be really bad, especially for ICO from USA. I can't understand the logic of regulator! Why the tokens are gonna be securities, but the platform they are built on - no! It is very strange in my opinion.
This is a good news and this regulation is necessary to work in peace with crypto. Else there is probability that crypto will be used in drug dealing and other illegal purposes. This will have a positive effect on the price hopefully.
I was about to post this. In my book, this proves two thing:
1) That someone within the government or at least enough influence to impact's the SEC decision on deciding if Ethereum is a security or not, is bagholding massive bags of Ethereum (maybe not proves, but definitely strengthens this conspiracy theory)
1) That someone within the government or at least enough influence to impact's the SEC decision on deciding if Ethereum is a security or not, is bagholding massive bags of Ethereum (maybe not proves, but definitely strengthens this conspiracy theory)
*They* are also bagholding bitcoin. I'm pretty sure banks invest in crypto meanwhile they said people to stay away from it // "invest in gold, silver, forex... cryptomarket is a dangerous snake"
Quote
2) That the altcoin bubble has just begun and will continue growing for a long time until something really bad happens technologically in any of the top 10 altcoins, when that happens a mass exodus into Bitcoin will ensue.
The altcoins just wait for the next generation, maybe TON will show the future with a real daily use.
But we all knew Bitcoin is not a security and it would look ridiculous if the claimed otherwise for whatever reason. Now with ETH you have to make an exercise in stretching out law interpretation in order to not classify it as a security ("it was a security in t0, then in t1 it was not a security..."). Im not sure about that but it is what it is and that's what they've decided.
I don't know what TON is but upon a fast research looks like Telegram devs jumping on the blockchain bandwagon. I don't know if they can deliver a solid product but I don't see an obvious reason for governments wanting to cold storage that token nonetheless, unless they see something exploitable by being 51%+ whales.
I was about to post this. In my book, this proves two thing:
1) That someone within the government or at least enough influence to impact's the SEC decision on deciding if Ethereum is a security or not, is bagholding massive bags of Ethereum (maybe not proves, but definitely strengthens this conspiracy theory)
1) That someone within the government or at least enough influence to impact's the SEC decision on deciding if Ethereum is a security or not, is bagholding massive bags of Ethereum (maybe not proves, but definitely strengthens this conspiracy theory)
*They* are also bagholding bitcoin. I'm pretty sure banks invest in crypto meanwhile they said people to stay away from it // "invest in gold, silver, forex... cryptomarket is a dangerous snake"
Quote
2) That the altcoin bubble has just begun and will continue growing for a long time until something really bad happens technologically in any of the top 10 altcoins, when that happens a mass exodus into Bitcoin will ensue.
The altcoins just wait for the next generation, maybe TON will show the future with a real daily use.
So like I said: If Ethereum came out today, it would be deemed an illegal security by US law.
I guess Ethereum holders lucked out with this one. I guess they did this to not screw up the current market, but I also think someone with SEC influence is bagholding ETH and this was in their interest.
At the end of the day they are screwing up the people that could get rich from investing in something very early to save the idiots that cannot do research. Once again government regulators screwing up those that put the work (to do the research) vs these that don't put the work and invest in obvious scams such as Bitconnect
This is the unfortunate aspect of the law.
And, the unintended consequence is many of blockchain projects will move outside of the United States so that they can raise capital prior to Network Launch.
The overall conclusion is that the SEC is losing money by missing on potentially the next big gem that happens through ICO means of raising capital. Who knows? Not 100% ICOs have to be scams, some are legit, and these few (which people here could find and invest in) are not going to take place in US as you said. As always regulations kicks out innovation.
It will avoid some idiot in investing on the next Bitconnect doing 0 research but said idiot will always find a way to invest in any other scam, just like the smart guy (that of course doesn't qualify as "qualified investor") will still find ways to invest even if they are US citizens.
The net result is the same, they are just annoying people that actually put work in research.
Im not sure if a VPN will be enough to invest on non US hosted ICOs as a US resident or they will also ask for ID+picture, but im sure they will find a workaround.
I believe his speech was not necessarily so positive because, on the other hand, the director stated everything you put money with intention to sell higher is a security, so everything else can be a security.
There is a lot of nuance determining whether something is a security.There are plenty of things you can buy with expectation it will go up in value that aren't securities. This expectation is one of several criteria.
The emphasis in this ruling is whether after Network Launch the network is decentralized, where it isn't controlled by a "third party". He said in the case of the Bitcoin and Ethereum networks these were adequately decentralized, and therefore, wasn't controlled by a third party thus making these not securities.
In contrast, Ripple and EOS are controlled by a central authority, which means they may be considered securities.
Ethereum is decentralized? Vitalik has enough power in Ethereum that it appears centralized to me.
I believe his speech was not necessarily so positive because, on the other hand, the director stated everything you put money with intention to sell higher is a security, so everything else can be a security.
There is a lot of nuance determining whether something is a security.There are plenty of things you can buy with expectation it will go up in value that aren't securities. This expectation is one of several criteria.
The emphasis in this ruling is whether after Network Launch the network is decentralized, where it isn't controlled by a "third party". He said in the case of the Bitcoin and Ethereum networks these were adequately decentralized, and therefore, wasn't controlled by a third party thus making these not securities.
In contrast, Ripple and EOS are controlled by a central authority, which means they may be considered securities.
Does this mean good news for bitcoin and ethereum?. If ethereum is not a security, does it mean ethereum tokens should not be referred to as securiries too?
As for me, this is a sign that the crypt is beginning to be recognized and perhaps at least somehow trying to make it more predictable.
I am not a specialist in the field of security so I am confused a little but I do not think that it is a tragedy because every complicated facility has defects and there is the reasonable question when developers will solve this problem.
Moreover I think that this trouble is not so awful because there are not news in mass media about this problem.
Moreover I think that this trouble is not so awful because there are not news in mass media about this problem.
I believe his speech was not necessarily so positive because, on the other hand, the director stated everything you put money with intention to sell higher is a security, so everything else can be a security.
ETH is the one of the successful coin in crypto market and this type of news seen on BTC also but still BTC running successfully same ETH also run future successfully still now more ICOS depended by EHT
So like I said: If Ethereum came out today, it would be deemed an illegal security by US law.
I guess Ethereum holders lucked out with this one. I guess they did this to not screw up the current market, but I also think someone with SEC influence is bagholding ETH and this was in their interest.
At the end of the day they are screwing up the people that could get rich from investing in something very early to save the idiots that cannot do research. Once again government regulators screwing up those that put the work (to do the research) vs these that don't put the work and invest in obvious scams such as Bitconnect
This is the unfortunate aspect of the law.
And, the unintended consequence is many of blockchain projects will move outside of the United States so that they can raise capital prior to Network Launch.
I am very interested in what consequences this statement of the SEC can bring? Will this affect the ethereum in the negative or not?
This will likely affect the price of ETH. Now news is what determines the price of the market. But I do not believe that the SEC's statement on ETH is true. They may have misunderstood the features of ETHNews was just announced and prices have already skyrocketed. What are you thoughts on this?
Well, I don't participate in ICOs since I live in the US, but I do find this news interesting. All of the financial press I follow have been mentioning crypto in the past year or so, so it has taken off. I would not have predicted this level of popularity a couple of years ago, but here we are.It's particularly interesting that they don't view ETH as a security. Isn't bitcoin considered a security in the eyes of the IRS? If I'm not mistaken, they don't view it as a currency since you have to pay capital gains taxes on it. Anywho, it's just as well that I can't participate in ICOs. I believe the vast majority of them are just useless cash grabs, and some are plain scams.
As far as I know the IRS can't have an independent opinion against what the SEC says. The SEC claimed Bitcoin isn't a security (it obviously never was), so the IRS task is to guarantee people pay taxes, not to argue about the SEC what Bitcoin or whatever else is. They just want your tax money and will follow guidelines set by SEC to determine what all these new things are.
But even if the SEC said Bitcoin was a security, it would just mean they are wrong. The government isn't infallible and can take stupid decisions, thankfully at least they didn't screw up with Bitcoin.
It is a good news for the industry. And I agreed with the statement and found market up. I agree that Bitcoin and ETH are not security. They are performing like securities but not exactly that. There are so many differences between stock and cryptos.
Maybe it's a good news. But it didn't any influence on the market. Nothing. BTC and ETH prices did not change. I think people afraid any cryptocurrencies after such dumping. More than 3 times for some coins. And now only stable uptrend can help to be glad
It is a good news for the industry. And I agreed with the statement and found market up. I agree that Bitcoin and ETH are not security. They are performing like securities but not exactly that. There are so many differences between stock and cryptos.
I feel the governments and SEC are trying everything possible to bring a crackdown on cryptocurrency in general, but which will all amount to futility. My question to them is that; what makes something a security and why should Ethereum that is seen as one of the most successfulaltcoin in the crypto space be seen a s a scam?
I am of the opinion that indeed blockcchain technology is not yet fully in use and there is still much better potential.
and now there are a lot of coins scattered in the market that makes investors split and again a lot of scams happen.
investors need more security and not just gambling speculation and I agree with the steps of the SEC.
and now there are a lot of coins scattered in the market that makes investors split and again a lot of scams happen.
investors need more security and not just gambling speculation and I agree with the steps of the SEC.
From The CryptoGraph
News was just announced and prices have already skyrocketed. What are you thoughts on this?
Quote
The SEC’s leader on cryptocurrencies and initial coin offerings (ICOs) says that Bitcoin and Ether are not securities but that many, not all, ICOs are securities and will come under the regulatory control of the SEC.
“Central to determining whether a security is being sold is how it is being sold and the reasonable expectations of purchasers,” William Hinman, head of the Division of Corporate Finance for the SEC.
Hinman noted that the central issue in determining whether cryptocurrencies and ICOs were securities was the expectation of a return by a third party, specifically whether there was a person or group that sponsored the creation and sale of the asset, and who played a significant role in its development and maintenance. If consumers are promised or are respecting an appreciation in value, and there is a centralized third party, then it can be classified as security according to Hinman.
Hinman specifically said that Bitcoin is not a security because it is decentralized: there is no central party whose efforts are a critical determining factor in the enterprise. Likewise, Ethereum cannot be considered a security because the Ethereum network is decentralized.
Mr. Hinman did not address the securities status of other cryptocurrencies, like Ripple (XRP), which is on the wrong end of a lawsuit alleging that it is a security. Additionally, a platform like EOS, which is controlled by Block.one, seems to be a likely contender for securities regulations. EOS’s system of validation, which delegates power to only 21 nodes, may not be enough decentralization in the eyes of the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Investors have eagerly been awaiting this decision, and we can all breathe a sigh of relief that the SEC continues to favor fair regulation and encourage innovation. Security regulations in the US are stringent and a securities label could remove many US investors from the global crypto market.
“Central to determining whether a security is being sold is how it is being sold and the reasonable expectations of purchasers,” William Hinman, head of the Division of Corporate Finance for the SEC.
Hinman noted that the central issue in determining whether cryptocurrencies and ICOs were securities was the expectation of a return by a third party, specifically whether there was a person or group that sponsored the creation and sale of the asset, and who played a significant role in its development and maintenance. If consumers are promised or are respecting an appreciation in value, and there is a centralized third party, then it can be classified as security according to Hinman.
Hinman specifically said that Bitcoin is not a security because it is decentralized: there is no central party whose efforts are a critical determining factor in the enterprise. Likewise, Ethereum cannot be considered a security because the Ethereum network is decentralized.
Mr. Hinman did not address the securities status of other cryptocurrencies, like Ripple (XRP), which is on the wrong end of a lawsuit alleging that it is a security. Additionally, a platform like EOS, which is controlled by Block.one, seems to be a likely contender for securities regulations. EOS’s system of validation, which delegates power to only 21 nodes, may not be enough decentralization in the eyes of the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Investors have eagerly been awaiting this decision, and we can all breathe a sigh of relief that the SEC continues to favor fair regulation and encourage innovation. Security regulations in the US are stringent and a securities label could remove many US investors from the global crypto market.
News was just announced and prices have already skyrocketed. What are you thoughts on this?
This is a welcome development for the cryptocurrency community because the news information is going to boost the price of altcoins in the market. Such major decisions are so fundamental to the demand and supply curves of the all altcoins in the crypto ecosystem.
Good news, was obvious it's not a security anyway though.
News was just announced and prices have already skyrocketed. What are you thoughts on this?
Well, I don't participate in ICOs since I live in the US, but I do find this news interesting. All of the financial press I follow have been mentioning crypto in the past year or so, so it has taken off. I would not have predicted this level of popularity a couple of years ago, but here we are.It's particularly interesting that they don't view ETH as a security. Isn't bitcoin considered a security in the eyes of the IRS? If I'm not mistaken, they don't view it as a currency since you have to pay capital gains taxes on it. Anywho, it's just as well that I can't participate in ICOs. I believe the vast majority of them are just useless cash grabs, and some are plain scams.
In the early days of Pre-ICOs, such as the Ethereum ICO circa 2014, the offering to purchase rights to tokens were open to anyone. This was a violation of US securities law. It's only recently that the SEC has realized this, and now is enforcing the law. Just ask the folks at Munchee.
The result is for Pre-ICOs organized under US law are no longer open to anyone. This locks out a lot of savvy investors such as blockchain enthusiasts who aren't accredited investors. These investors must wait until Network Launch. At this stage, the ROI is typically dramatically less than early rounds during the Pre-ICO phase. Of course, it's also dramatically less risky thus the lower return.
The result is for Pre-ICOs organized under US law are no longer open to anyone. This locks out a lot of savvy investors such as blockchain enthusiasts who aren't accredited investors. These investors must wait until Network Launch. At this stage, the ROI is typically dramatically less than early rounds during the Pre-ICO phase. Of course, it's also dramatically less risky thus the lower return.
So like I said: If Ethereum came out today, it would be deemed an illegal security by US law.
I guess Ethereum holders lucked out with this one. I guess they did this to not screw up the current market, but I also think someone with SEC influence is bagholding ETH and this was in their interest.
At the end of the day they are screwing up the people that could get rich from investing in something very early to save the idiots that cannot do research. Once again government regulators screwing up those that put the work (to do the research) vs these that don't put the work and invest in obvious scams such as Bitconnect
Here is the key distinction... some cryptocurrencies such as bitcoin and ether can be used as a medium of payment. This means they have inherent value because sellers are willing to trade a cryptocurrency for goods or services. Further, there are currency exchanges that will exchange a cryptocurrency for fiat currency. This means they are liquid.
The is gist of this ruling.
The is gist of this ruling.
No token project at the beginning is going to have liquidity therefore it's not going to be viable as a medium of payment... so any new token from now on is a security if judging by this.
By declaring ICOs a security, it restricts investors residing in the United States to only "Accredited Investors". This means only Accredited Investors may invest in ICOs. That's unfortunate to savvy investors who are quite capable of distinguishing a scam from a legit ICO as well as can responsibility restrict their investment budget, BUT who aren't Accredited Investors.
What's ironic is if Ethereum came out today it would qualify as a security because it would lack the liquidity part which judging by what you said is what made the SEC not count it as a security, so it wouldn't have allowed all these early investors to get rich because im sure 0% of them would qualify as "accredited investors". Most early Ethereum investors im sure were geeky guys that were interested in Bitcoin and browsed this forum looking for the next big thing go make massive gains with since they missed the Bitcoin boat.
As far as US security law, there are two phases of raising capital for a project. The "Network Launch" is what separates these phases. Network Launch by definition is when the the network is operational allowing the public to purchase and use tokens.
Provided there is a use for the token (which, presumably, is what the token designers designed to token to do) the token becomes a utility token, and thus isn't a security according to US securities law, and this announcement confirms the SEC understanding.
Prior to Network Launch there aren't tokens because the network is under construction. In this phase, investors can purchase rights to a number of tokens at Network Launch. These rights are considered securities.
So, an ICO is really organized into two phases:
Pre-ICO - prior to Network Launch
ICO - after Network Launch
In the early days of Pre-ICOs, such as the Ethereum ICO circa 2014, the offering to purchase rights to tokens were open to anyone. This was a violation of US securities law. It's only recently that the SEC has realized this, and now is enforcing the law. Just ask the folks at Munchee.
The result is for Pre-ICOs organized under US law are no longer open to anyone. This locks out a lot of savvy investors such as blockchain enthusiasts who aren't accredited investors. These investors must wait until Network Launch. At this stage, the ROI is typically dramatically less than early rounds during the Pre-ICO phase. Of course, it's also dramatically less risky thus the lower return.
The law surrounding ICOs is new and evolving. Everytime the SEC makes a ruling, it helps attorneys understand the "rules of the game", and in turn help their clients. This is quite helpful.
Here is the key distinction... some cryptocurrencies such as bitcoin and ether can be used as a medium of payment. This means they have inherent value because sellers are willing to trade a cryptocurrency for goods or services. Further, there are currency exchanges that will exchange a cryptocurrency for fiat currency. This means they are liquid.
The is gist of this ruling.
The is gist of this ruling.
No token project at the beginning is going to have liquidity therefore it's not going to be viable as a medium of payment... so any new token from now on is a security if judging by this.
By declaring ICOs a security, it restricts investors residing in the United States to only "Accredited Investors". This means only Accredited Investors may invest in ICOs. That's unfortunate to savvy investors who are quite capable of distinguishing a scam from a legit ICO as well as can responsibility restrict their investment budget, BUT who aren't Accredited Investors.
What's ironic is if Ethereum came out today it would qualify as a security because it would lack the liquidity part which judging by what you said is what made the SEC not count it as a security, so it wouldn't have allowed all these early investors to get rich because im sure 0% of them would qualify as "accredited investors". Most early Ethereum investors im sure were geeky guys that were interested in Bitcoin and browsed this forum looking for the next big thing go make massive gains with since they missed the Bitcoin boat.
This is just proves that ethereum is going to be in here for more than years and that it is accesible to almost everyone on the US and all the other countries . Those are very good news
SEC is one of that fiatwhale supporters that now joined this game to manipulate with crypto price without adding something useful in this field 
They just ban, or allow - but to allow you don't need to be special. For ban also. Useless part in crypto development as for me
Actually, the SEC is quite supportive of blockchain and cryptocurrencies. They are working hard to create the rules that provide the infrastructure that will allow widespread use.They just ban, or allow - but to allow you don't need to be special. For ban also. Useless part in crypto development as for me
These rules are extremely useful.
The SEC's priority is protecting unsophisticated investors who aren't savvy enough to detect ICO scams AND can't afford to lose their money in such scams. There are a lot of ICOs that are scams. So, these "bans" are helpful.
Now, by declaring cryptocurrencies NOT a security, this SEC ruling opens the way for any investor, regardless of their sophistication or ability to afford losing their investment, to buy cryptocurrencies as an investment.
It also opens the ability to use cryptocurrencies as a medium of payment as well as other uses.
That seems quite helpful to crypto development.
By declaring ICOs a security, it restricts investors residing in the United States to only "Accredited Investors". This means only Accredited Investors may invest in ICOs. That's unfortunate to savvy investors who are quite capable of distinguishing a scam from a legit ICO as well as can responsibility restrict their investment budget, BUT who aren't Accredited Investors.
Adding "rules of the game" helps stabilize the market. Stability helps the market because it makes the market more predictable. Investors like predictability.
Still, cryptocurrencies are like commodity trading in that while they are predictable they are still subject to wide swings in price due to unforeseen changes in market conditions.
Still, cryptocurrencies are like commodity trading in that while they are predictable they are still subject to wide swings in price due to unforeseen changes in market conditions.
SEC is one of that fiatwhale supporters that now joined this game to manipulate with crypto price without adding something useful in this field
They just ban, or allow - but to allow you don't need to be special. For ban also. Useless part in crypto development as for me
They just ban, or allow - but to allow you don't need to be special. For ban also. Useless part in crypto development as for me
I am very interested in what consequences this statement of the SEC can bring? Will this affect the ethereum in the negative or not?
SEC expresses such an opinion to all crypto-currencies. Now there are big manipulations with the market and this can not be called fair trade.
The SEC can and should control the rules of the game
The SEC can and should control the rules of the game
They ARE trying.
It's challenging because blockchain and cryptocurrencies are so new. There are many aspects that are unclear, and these ambiguities impact the market.
So, one by one, they are addressing these aspects. With each ruling it establishes a "rule of the game". This helps stabilize markets.
Declaring that cryptocurrencies are NOT securities is an essential ruling to allow them to become a medium of payment.
SEC expresses such an opinion to all crypto-currencies. Now there are big manipulations with the market and this can not be called fair trade.
The SEC can and should control the rules of the game
The SEC can and should control the rules of the game
Yup came across this news and was really relieved to hear that one. The is great news for my crypto friend circle with whom I am doing the ETH mining and obviously ETH getting some relaxing news makes us relaxed. This can set the future of ETH very well and might tell others to invest into it as it gets more or less lawful orders. ETH always has been great platform and it was supposed to get attention with SEC and other big entities regulating the share markets and securities. I hope this news will slowly surge through everyone's eyes and more positive sphere will keep pumping.
This ruling makes sense, and is an important ruling because it makes a clear distinction between an existing cryptocurrency, which has utility inherent within it, versus an initial coin offering that raises capital for a yet to be created cryptocurrency, which until it exists, has no utility.
It doesn't make sense to me. Explain why Ethereum is any different from the other ICO's which were outlawed? They raised capital the same way too, and offer whatever service, service expectations being meet or not. Ethereum has already failed to meet "code is law" expectations.
The news are great, but I don't think that is the reason why the prices skyrocketed. Most good news don't have a real influence in the prices these days, and the bad news are used for dumps. Not that they justify the dump, but I guess people who want to short bitcoin, use them to have a greater effect on the price.
Right now, what we are seeing in the markets, probably has a high dose of manipulation in my opinion. I guess it wont matter in the long run though, when adoption gets high enough for these moves to have no effect on the price.
Anyway, like I said before, those are indeed good news though, which is great.
Right now, what we are seeing in the markets, probably has a high dose of manipulation in my opinion. I guess it wont matter in the long run though, when adoption gets high enough for these moves to have no effect on the price.
Anyway, like I said before, those are indeed good news though, which is great.
These news create quick pumps due an uncertainty that has been there for a long time being resolved, so I see both BTC and ETH going up, if it's enough to end the bear trend is another story.
The news are great, but I don't think that is the reason why the prices skyrocketed. Most good news don't have a real influence in the prices these days, and the bad news are used for dumps. Not that they justify the dump, but I guess people who want to short bitcoin, use them to have a greater effect on the price.
Right now, what we are seeing in the markets, probably has a high dose of manipulation in my opinion. I guess it wont matter in the long run though, when adoption gets high enough for these moves to have no effect on the price.
Anyway, like I said before, those are indeed good news though, which is great.
Right now, what we are seeing in the markets, probably has a high dose of manipulation in my opinion. I guess it wont matter in the long run though, when adoption gets high enough for these moves to have no effect on the price.
Anyway, like I said before, those are indeed good news though, which is great.
The Ethereum scam? Why so harsh? I'm a Bitcoin maximalist myself, but it's impossible to deny the positive effect that ETH has had on our ecosystem. As for bag-holding, I wouldn't quite put it like that. To me it's more a question of "Do we want to kill this ailing market dead right off the bat? Or are we curious to see where it could go."
So yeah, overall loving this news, even though I hold exactly 0 ETH at the moment.
So yeah, overall loving this news, even though I hold exactly 0 ETH at the moment.
Ethereum praises itself as "decentralized" and wanted to push this narrative of how "code is law" for their smart contracts; we all know what happened with the DAO. The whole point of smart contracts is a joke if a faulty smart contract can deliver a hardfork that creates a new altcoin as a result, all of this mess which resulted in holders losing money just to socialize losses of bad coding.
I don't even know what to call Ethereum anymore but it is sure not money let alone a store of value. This is why people pretending it's more valuable than Bitcoin are straight scammers.
The SEC are a bunch of scammers too by arbitrarily ruling out Ethereum's launch characteristics which make it a security. They literally ignored that part. Well, now anyone should be able to keep launching tokens via this same method and then point to Ethereum as reference to prove it's not a security and bypass the law, I wonder what kind of bullshit excuse they would come out with if someone tries that.
This ruling makes sense, and is an important ruling because it makes a clear distinction between an existing cryptocurrency, which has utility inherent within it, versus an initial coin offering that raises capital for a yet to be created cryptocurrency, which until it exists, has no utility.
One should not trust them 100%, maybe they pursue their interests, because they are confident that they are listened to and can affect the price.
The Ethereum scam? Why so harsh? I'm a Bitcoin maximalist myself, but it's impossible to deny the positive effect that ETH has had on our ecosystem. As for bag-holding, I wouldn't quite put it like that. To me it's more a question of "Do we want to kill this ailing market dead right off the bat? Or are we curious to see where it could go."
So yeah, overall loving this news, even though I hold exactly 0 ETH at the moment.
So yeah, overall loving this news, even though I hold exactly 0 ETH at the moment.
I don't know if this is a good news or not i need some one to interpret that for me. I get that they are decentralized and i don't know it implications
I was about to post this. In my book, this proves two thing:
1) That someone within the government or at least enough influence to impact's the SEC decision on deciding if Ethereum is a security or not, is bagholding massive bags of Ethereum (maybe not proves, but definitely strengthens this conspiracy theory)
2) That the altcoin bubble has just begun and will continue growing for a long time until something really bad happens technologically in any of the top 10 altcoins, when that happens a mass exodus into Bitcoin will ensue.
By legitimating the Ethereum scam, the altcoin speculation will get as wild as ever. Also anyone going to court for hosting an ICO, they can just point to how Ethereum was called not a security and your token meets the same launch criteria as Ethereum did.
1) That someone within the government or at least enough influence to impact's the SEC decision on deciding if Ethereum is a security or not, is bagholding massive bags of Ethereum (maybe not proves, but definitely strengthens this conspiracy theory)
2) That the altcoin bubble has just begun and will continue growing for a long time until something really bad happens technologically in any of the top 10 altcoins, when that happens a mass exodus into Bitcoin will ensue.
By legitimating the Ethereum scam, the altcoin speculation will get as wild as ever. Also anyone going to court for hosting an ICO, they can just point to how Ethereum was called not a security and your token meets the same launch criteria as Ethereum did.
From The CryptoGraph
News was just announced and prices have already skyrocketed. What are you thoughts on this?
Quote
The SEC’s leader on cryptocurrencies and initial coin offerings (ICOs) says that Bitcoin and Ether are not securities but that many, not all, ICOs are securities and will come under the regulatory control of the SEC.
“Central to determining whether a security is being sold is how it is being sold and the reasonable expectations of purchasers,” William Hinman, head of the Division of Corporate Finance for the SEC.
Hinman noted that the central issue in determining whether cryptocurrencies and ICOs were securities was the expectation of a return by a third party, specifically whether there was a person or group that sponsored the creation and sale of the asset, and who played a significant role in its development and maintenance. If consumers are promised or are respecting an appreciation in value, and there is a centralized third party, then it can be classified as security according to Hinman.
Hinman specifically said that Bitcoin is not a security because it is decentralized: there is no central party whose efforts are a critical determining factor in the enterprise. Likewise, Ethereum cannot be considered a security because the Ethereum network is decentralized.
Mr. Hinman did not address the securities status of other cryptocurrencies, like Ripple (XRP), which is on the wrong end of a lawsuit alleging that it is a security. Additionally, a platform like EOS, which is controlled by Block.one, seems to be a likely contender for securities regulations. EOS’s system of validation, which delegates power to only 21 nodes, may not be enough decentralization in the eyes of the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Investors have eagerly been awaiting this decision, and we can all breathe a sigh of relief that the SEC continues to favor fair regulation and encourage innovation. Security regulations in the US are stringent and a securities label could remove many US investors from the global crypto market.
“Central to determining whether a security is being sold is how it is being sold and the reasonable expectations of purchasers,” William Hinman, head of the Division of Corporate Finance for the SEC.
Hinman noted that the central issue in determining whether cryptocurrencies and ICOs were securities was the expectation of a return by a third party, specifically whether there was a person or group that sponsored the creation and sale of the asset, and who played a significant role in its development and maintenance. If consumers are promised or are respecting an appreciation in value, and there is a centralized third party, then it can be classified as security according to Hinman.
Hinman specifically said that Bitcoin is not a security because it is decentralized: there is no central party whose efforts are a critical determining factor in the enterprise. Likewise, Ethereum cannot be considered a security because the Ethereum network is decentralized.
Mr. Hinman did not address the securities status of other cryptocurrencies, like Ripple (XRP), which is on the wrong end of a lawsuit alleging that it is a security. Additionally, a platform like EOS, which is controlled by Block.one, seems to be a likely contender for securities regulations. EOS’s system of validation, which delegates power to only 21 nodes, may not be enough decentralization in the eyes of the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Investors have eagerly been awaiting this decision, and we can all breathe a sigh of relief that the SEC continues to favor fair regulation and encourage innovation. Security regulations in the US are stringent and a securities label could remove many US investors from the global crypto market.
News was just announced and prices have already skyrocketed. What are you thoughts on this?
Jump to: