Topic: SEC chairman being very conservative and thus hostile to cryptos (Read 139 times)
When people succeed, their actions will take the market. And he might be trying to protect his opinion. But really can not understand the problem and maybe this is the foolish and foolish. It's also not really a matter of professional investors.
August 06, 2018, 04:26:58 PM
Quote
He is also extremely confusing, because he says that btc is not a security, while ICOs are!
Bitcoin is not a security.
And depending on who you ask, ICOs can definitely be classed as securities to some degree as in most cases, someone is directly selling it to you as stakes in a network or some sort of utility token, which is fairly similar to how traditional securities work. Regardless of this debate, bitcoin is definitely not a security.
He might have something to do with the ETFs not being approved, but apart from that, I don't think that his stance on ICOs are necessarily wrong.
Sometimes, diligence is needed, especially in the scope of ICOs as they are extremely risky and most are not even legit.. Of course, if someone was directly calling for bans on bitcoin itself, it would be a different story.
August 06, 2018, 02:42:22 AM
I watched a fragment from an interview SEC chairman gave to CNBC almost 2 months ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YtZJRUak8E. Is it just me, or is this guy really irritating? He behaves very rude with the reporter and keeps repeating the same thing about securities and how SEC is not going to adjust its policies for cryptos to fit in. He keeps appealing to the fact that their policy has been around for some time and proved to be working. But conservatism is not a way to survive in our world, right? People need to be ready to change, to adapt according to the needs and demands of time.
He is also extremely confusing, because he says that btc is not a security, while ICOs are! And so I thought perhaps SEC is crazy enough to approve ICOs before cryptos. This moment is also exploited in this piece of news: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zgf5EE1b6OA. But then he says that SEC will not adjust their rules to regulate ICOs...
What's wrong with him and what did he actually mean? If this is the chairman, no wonder etf wasn't approved and will probably not be approved for quite some time.
What are your thoughts on this?
He may not have realized his shortcomings and is trying to cover up that deficiency. But I believe that whatever the circumstances, there will be opportunities for us. Especially no one, reject the huge profits that. For another time there will definitely be changes to that view. These construction projects are opportunities to generate profitable cash flows and profits. He will review and will have a friendly way to market to see. He is also extremely confusing, because he says that btc is not a security, while ICOs are! And so I thought perhaps SEC is crazy enough to approve ICOs before cryptos. This moment is also exploited in this piece of news: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zgf5EE1b6OA. But then he says that SEC will not adjust their rules to regulate ICOs...
What's wrong with him and what did he actually mean? If this is the chairman, no wonder etf wasn't approved and will probably not be approved for quite some time.
What are your thoughts on this?
I am actually on the side of the SEC chairman in this case.
The only thing we can blame the SEC for is their lack of clarity, but on the other hand, if they don't know how to properly define a security or how to properly understand what crypto in its entirety is about, why should we bug them with constant requests? The only thing people are doing is annoy them and make them reject everything sooner.
What we know is that crypto currencies such as Bitcoin aren't securities, which is great. ICO's are by definition a security regardless of how you look at it, and that doesn't require them to change existing laws. People and businesses responsible for initiating an ICO should for once look in the mirror and accept that their ICO garbage is a security. In other words, they have to follow the legacy route of making sure their security gets approved.
The only thing we can blame the SEC for is their lack of clarity, but on the other hand, if they don't know how to properly define a security or how to properly understand what crypto in its entirety is about, why should we bug them with constant requests? The only thing people are doing is annoy them and make them reject everything sooner.
What we know is that crypto currencies such as Bitcoin aren't securities, which is great. ICO's are by definition a security regardless of how you look at it, and that doesn't require them to change existing laws. People and businesses responsible for initiating an ICO should for once look in the mirror and accept that their ICO garbage is a security. In other words, they have to follow the legacy route of making sure their security gets approved.
I watched a fragment from an interview SEC chairman gave to CNBC almost 2 months ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YtZJRUak8E. Is it just me, or is this guy really irritating? He behaves very rude with the reporter and keeps repeating the same thing about securities and how SEC is not going to adjust its policies for cryptos to fit in. He keeps appealing to the fact that their policy has been around for some time and proved to be working. But conservatism is not a way to survive in our world, right? People need to be ready to change, to adapt according to the needs and demands of time.
He is also extremely confusing, because he says that btc is not a security, while ICOs are! And so I thought perhaps SEC is crazy enough to approve ICOs before cryptos. This moment is also exploited in this piece of news: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zgf5EE1b6OA. But then he says that SEC will not adjust their rules to regulate ICOs...
What's wrong with him and what did he actually mean? If this is the chairman, no wonder etf wasn't approved and will probably not be approved for quite some time.
What are your thoughts on this?
He is also extremely confusing, because he says that btc is not a security, while ICOs are! And so I thought perhaps SEC is crazy enough to approve ICOs before cryptos. This moment is also exploited in this piece of news: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zgf5EE1b6OA. But then he says that SEC will not adjust their rules to regulate ICOs...
What's wrong with him and what did he actually mean? If this is the chairman, no wonder etf wasn't approved and will probably not be approved for quite some time.
What are your thoughts on this?
Jump to: