Topic: Shower thought, on Gensler vs. Crypto (Read 115 times)

The problem with the Howey Test is the developers could open a technical argument that the token within the system is a "utility token" and therefore required for the protocol to function.

We already know the majority of these networks are protocols with bad incentives, but because they're doing something that, from the outside looks like they technically make sense, their developers could get away from being called a fraudster.

The 4 elements of the Howey test

• an investment of money
• in a common enterprise
• with the expectation of profit
• to be derived from the efforts of others

ICO's, Dash, Eth...... are Securities.
Bitcoin is not it was all about buying Alpaca socks and such, nobody sent money to a centralized enterprise like the Ethereum foundation and others

I think Gensler is just a paid pawn in a very big game of corruption, deceit & control. The US doesn’t want to lose value in the $ so they will do everything in their power to try & prop it up. The SEC & Gensler are not trying to protect investors, they are trying to protect big banking institutions & the $ value. Evidence of this is approving all kinds of bitcoin futures ETF’s, leverage ETF’s & not a spot ETF. Unfortunately them bitcoin isn’t going away & they will soon have to clear a path for bitcoin.

Bring them in with the smartest people in the room, and with the bureaucats, the administrators, and the legislators also present in the room to learn and understand what technically truly works, and what doesn't in crypto.


They were merely my personal examples, you could also suggest the developers that you want. You want Vitalik? Gavin Wood? Include them in the panel, and let them debate and discuss important topics in crypto such as, Proof of Stake.

the funy part is there are a group of idiots wanting to create barriers of entry pretending its "mainstreaming" by making it more difficult to enter in to crypto purchasing

another groups prtending financial rules dont apply to currency and so ignore regulations when the set up services

another group that want to deregulate the businesses surrounding crypto... but yes al of them dont undestand what things are what.
they dont understand that its not just about KYC . there are more to it. such as needing a push that businesses acting as custodians should be audited and require ensuring the reserves. (consumer protections) and where scam coins should be regulated and prevented from being promoted/advertised and pumped.

gensler diud actually spend a few years learning about crypto. and went on to then lecture about it to students.. not perfect analogies he used and he kept asking his students to inform the class. so not 100% educated, but he tried more then other types like warren, yellen and such

however he is more standback-ish by saying businesses need to be regulated but then not actually making clear guidelines on the process.
it need to be formalised and set in stone like a proper policy guide. rather than an 'unofficial opinion'  of if something should be commodity or security with no clear final official milestoned answer/decision made.

It could be a solution but what I don't understand is why a government or a state should say what I can have and what I can't.  What valid explanations could they give?  Why might I own X rather than Y?  But above all why should they forbid me to do it?  Regardless of whether there are more valid reasons for doing so.

Am I the only one starting to feel that the SEC story is starting to be discussed intensely by a lot of people who don't have a detailed knowledge of what SEC is or how regulation works even some of us attacked Gary Gensler without knowing all the information we know about him is that he "works against cryptocurrency"

If someone has detailed knowledge and created a topic about SEC better and contains a lot of information, it is better than these topics that are a dump of emotions.

yes there should be a panel but your idea of WHO.. is nonsense, time to wash your hear while in the shower

you again are spouting more god worship of giving more political powers to those three core centralists, you love centralisation too much..
out of dozens of thousands of devs, millions of economists and millions of educators you still can only think of your same 3 gods to worship.. .. come on, put down your cult bible. think outside of your cult

economists and actual experts should be on a panel not devs.
adam back and greg have no economic skill at all.. they also admit they dont even have time to review other non proposing 'full nodes' so they wont know or care or understand all the intricacies of every coin/protocol/codebase because thats their motto. they wanted core to be the only reference client for bitcoin because they wont review others.. so that means they dont know, or want to know as much about other things as you hope

as for categorisations
a commodity is a raw item that is used to make other items(wheat=bread. oil=fuel/plastics, gold=electronics/jewellery)
for instance a mainnets uxto format of btc that can be locked(segwit/taproot) to then peg out other 'products' (units/iou tokens/msats) would be where the segwit/taproot locked utxo is the commodity

a security is an end product/unit of value measure of something it represents.

for instance a legacy utxo of btc cannot be used to lock and then be pegged to a subnetwork. and so legacy btc when used in legacy transactions without a locktime would be a security. as its the end product

however value locked in segwit/taproot that is then used for subnetwork pegged IOU value would be the commodity. where its pegged token/msat becomes the security

it would get more complex when sublevel2 networks then have sublevel 3 networks pegging value down another level. but thats for economists and experts to look at

much like how gold can be used as a security and a commodity depending on its usage. yes gold sits on both markets.

compare beef sold on the international open commodities market where it will be made into other products(commodity market) vs beef sold in a farmshop. you dont need a commodities licence to sell beef in a farm shop becasue they are selling an end product

...
its not as simple as network A is commodity and network B is security. its all about what a locked allotment(bulk holding) is used as

same goes for any currency.
give $100 to a relative for a gift gets treated differently then giving $100 to a investment broker to buy shares. they have different tax treatment and fit into different categories of if a specialist(fiduciary) should be handling the funds or if its something that should be unregulated(birthday gifts)


yes there should be a panel that look at which coins have real economic utility/viability vs scam pump and dump shitcoins. thus announcing which coins an exchange can even handle

but for the ones an exchange could handle another panel would then ratify which category of utility/purpose those allotments of coins fit into based on what the exchange/service/network does with the coins and how they act within the systems they operate within

EG legacy btc that just transfers on the network get treated with less/no regulation. as they are just end product assets. yet taproot btc hoarded in locks of 'federated factory channel trust" to be used for other purposes would get treated differently

if unsure of all of this.. just take one currency.. FIAT
when an employee receives fiat. its not capgains they need to audit. its income tax
when a retail business receives fiat. its not capgains they need to audit. its corporation tax
when a investor receives fiat from an investment. its not income tax they need to audit. its capgains

fiat held in a personal bank account is treated with different rules and policies to that of fiat stored in a brokerage which is treated differently to fiat stored in a retail business

They know they could have done this, but there greatest fear is what goes or transpired without their consent with cryptocurrency if they allow a digital currency like bitcoin to remain, they will have no reason to regulate or perform authorization on any, what they failed to see is that bitcoin is their major fear and threat in this because it's a decentralized digital currency, they would rather prefer striking attacks to discourage people from using it.


This could have been possible if theirs a different means to hold bitcoin from other cryptocurrencies whereby the exchanges will be left with no other option than to only operate with alts or bitcoin only, many people still don't understand the difference between bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies.


They may assume them to be Satoshi or the group of people believed to be Satoshi, as long as the bitcoin network cannot be altered by anyone i think it's secured enough and self sustainable, that's why we could see all the previous attacks attempted on bitcoin never stand, they all resulted on a chase after air.

They should reduce power of a chair of any government agency which is responsible to regulate markets like U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in securities and exchanges area.

With Gary Gensler, SEC. want to involve more in cryptocurrency market and to make their engagement more officially legal, they are trying to call altcoins as securities. They try to scam us and if they are scammers, they will not hire any expert from cryptocurrency and blockchain industry to make things right.

Gary failed to protect his view that altcoins are securities. He could not answer Ethereum is a security or not a security.

The first thing they should do is to fire the scammer Gary Gensler.

They love freedom and they will not want to be controlled by government agencies.

That would work but let's remember that the US government and the SEC have no interest in creating such a panel, and inevitably, it will also include US-based cryptocurrency firm execs such as Coinbase, Kraken, Gemini etc, each with their own agendas to protect their own coins. Once upon a time, they probably could have even had Sam Bankman-Fried on the panel because of his close ties to the government and Gensler in particular.

To find which cryptocurrencies should be allowed in the hands of every person, shouldn't the SEC or the U.S. Government itself hire and form a panel of experts to consult which of the networks/protocols truly work and which ones are scams? Especially those protocols that are built on too much technical complexity that it's hard to point precisely where it doesn't truly work.

I believe people like Adam Back, Gregory Maxwell, and Peter Todd should be in a panel together to discuss, debate about crypto and educate the bureaucrats.