Topic: The SEC is right. It's not about Bitcoin, it's about centralized shitcoins. (Read 585 times)

Whether we like it or not, however, all states will be forced to regulate the circulation of cryptocurrency on their territory. This is a direct responsibility of the state in the field of the financial sector of the economy. All the statements of some participants in the cryptocurrency market that the cryptocurrency is a decentralized system and therefore cannot be regulated by anyone is nothing more than a wishful thinking. No state can allow large amounts of funds to be circulated on its territory, which it cannot control at all. Therefore, it is worth recognizing that states will regulate the cryptocurrency market as a whole. For the cryptocurrency and the participants in this market, this is both good and bad. It all depends on how far-sighted and balanced such regulation will be.

But not all investors know how to use there money in terms of investment and the only thing they know is they can earn  some profit bt trading that's the reason why those shitcoins exist they exploit the other thinking of newbies that they can earn a lot of money out there. Maybe the disadvantage only in regulation happen is taxation but other than that maybe we can see positive things since from that we can potentially see bitcoin will be declared as legal tender if this is well used and presented well to government also to more people.

I agreed that what SEC do to proven centralized crypto to make it a security and demand for authorization of exchange is more right than wrong and they not targeting Bitcoin, but it's not because they don't want but because they can't if they have even slight chance to do the same to Bitcoin they will. And even with what they are doing now, Bitcoin still got the collateral damage.

I don't believe that SEC doing it to protect the public, if they were protecting the public at all, there is more cheating stock broker than unauthorized crypto securities out there need to be punished.

I agree partly. Of course they cannot simply "shut them down" if they weren't launched in the US - but of course if they were delisted from all US exchanges, their success chance should be reduced drastically as the US is an important market. And yes, they should concentrate on indicators which make it likely a coin is a scam.

However I think really determining "technical feasibility" here is difficult to achieve. Let's have the question for example: "Is Proof of stake a feasible algorithm?"

Proof of Stake makes some assumptions about parameters like liveness and synchronicity of nodes, but if these assumptions are true, then they seem to work (empirically - Ethereum isn't constantly attacked successfully, and even much smaller coins seem to "just work"). What every Bitcoin maximalist will tell you, however, is that these protocols work only because the liveness/synchronicity is achieved through centralization.

As both points of view could be considered valid, I guess thus it is impossible to determine in a clear way if an algorithm works or not.

Thus I think that SEC and similar authorities should simply concentrate on regulating the communication which is required from centralized altcoin dev groups, in the same way securities issuers (e.g. public corporations) are regulated. That means for example, that they have to inform people about the main characteristics of the coin, a possible pre-mine or dev fee, the way the tokens are used (e.g. in the case of utility tokens) and of course the inherent risks - above all, that the coin may be worthless if the dev team shuts down. And also restrictions: that they can't promise any kind of benefit (as long as there is no fixed interest rate, for example).

The way the European MiCa regulation did this, seems to me a feasible way (requiring a whitepaper with these informations from all centralized altcoins, including ETH, which can also be provided by traders if the coin issuers aren't providing it).

I tend to disagree here that the SEC is right about Binance and CoinBase. Can you tell me what differentiate Ethereum from the likes of BNB, ADA, Solano etc these altcoins are all the same because they copied everything that Ethereum did during their ICO and replicate it in their own project. The thing here is that SEC has two rule books, one for their projects and people good to them examples are FTX, Ethereum, Avalanche etc and the other for Binance and majority of the Altcoins. This is bad and the funny thing here that people that are calling for the heads of Binance are the sympathizers of FTX, where was SEC when SBF was scamming people of their money, making political donations to politicians, and I believe if the exchange did not blow up, he will still be championed has the JP morgan of Crypto. Whether we like it or not, Crypto is here to stay and we need to allow it to flourish, so the earlier the better they make rules to govern it, I believe their fear is that people will find a way around this rule but how can you officiate a game without a written down rule to govern it

Because the SEC did this recently before the accusation against Binance and Coinbase, most people would think that the SEC is putting pressure on companies related to the digital currency or crypto industry. After this happened to Binance and Coinbase both big companies in this industry, it is very impossible to get rid of that from the minds of most communities here in the field of cryptocurrency.

Now, at least it is clear to the majority that what the SEC did was really only for the centralized ones that they think are shitcoins which the majority of the community in the crypto space is not.

Do we have to have an opposite view everytime SEC says something in order to be bitcoin maxis? That would be just weird. I am not a bitcoin maximalist, far from it. And i don't see people in here defending SEC but defending decentralization.

Thing is, if you can make an altcoin die by stating it's a security, then it wasn't serving any purpose to begin with. And agreeing that some of the CEXes might have been involved in criminal activity doesn't make us bitcoin maximalists either. Cryptocurrencies will be regulated on some level anyway, we shall see what level that will be. Just fighting all regulations because they are regulations is pointless.

If you are talking about CBDCs, this is a false statement. We don't even know the tech CBDCs will be eventually build on. And bitcoin isn't competition to any fiat money, they are created for different purposes. Other one of them is created to maintain stability and control. So they have different purposes.

The weather will clear after the rain
Like so many other things that have happened here I see the SEC as just a way to create drama in the crypto space, although people will eventually realize the potential of btc as well as the crypto market. The subjects listed by the SEC also need to be discussed more clearly than the allegation on one side.
For me the controversy with BinanceUS, I don't think anyone is wrong but it has brought a short-term panic, in other words, the powerful people who buy them for this purpose are right evil people for their own sake.

On behalf of the SEC, it wants to protect the interests and best interests of businesses and small investors. However, these actions actually have some problems when it comes to the development and popularity of bitcoin for everyone. Indirectly, they want to be able to strictly regulate bitcoin and not allow anything to get out of their control. If something can affect their interests and they don't know who is behind it, it is a danger to them, so they want to interfere. But such excessive interference damaged their reputation among investors and also caused many people to panic over these FUDs. Anyway, the current news related to this issue still has many hidden corners, and we should wait for a good piece of evidence related to the two sides.

If we want to stay away from scams as long as we avoid investing in shitcoins and memescoins... and only focus on bitcoin, then no one can scam us.  i wonder, why do we both want high returns from altcoins and want legal protection at the same time? if we make a profit, we celebrate and even evade taxes, but when we lose, we want justice to be there. Are we being too greedy?  regulation would be good to an extent, but it would also stop the hype and limit market volatility, and our profits would fall from there.

This is why we also need to look for the bright side of the regulation they do since it somehow those things are been implemented for protection of people to be away of those potential scams. Although sometimes there decisions are been so harsh and they had been trying to take out those what we think a good platforms, but its still understandable since maybe they don't have deep knowledge about crypto and they have old school outlook about financing. But for sure they can adopt it well if crypto regulation and education will be on highest scale.

Or how about we put ideology aside.

I believe SEC should also focus on which of those altcoin protocols/networks are technically feasible/which of them are actually working and which of them are scams. That would probably be the SEC's best chance of shutting them down, and issue an order to have those coins delisted.

What the SEC could do is to call a group of developers, gather them in a room, and debate why or why not some network is or isn't technically feasible.

It would be Adam Back and Gregory Maxwell vs. Vitalik Buterin and Gavin Wood in a debate about something like the flaws in Ethereum's Solidity programming language, why POS does/doesn't work, or why Turing completeness in the blockchain is not good.

I believe it's still the protection of those who are going to be victimized if those altcoins are not going to be regulated or something. They are going to be the ones protecting the people. It's best that people should know what to do and what to invest in so they understand and not lose anything.

And yet I didn't see you protesting about the fact that Bukele has never released proof of his Bitcoin buyouts, never protested against a centralized wallet requiring KYC, never protested about the government in control of your cryptos, and I know it already why because that was good for the price!!!

That's the difference between having some moral standards and doesn't use doubles ones depending on the APY  involved.
You're protecting CZ and Binance, a centralized entity that has no room in the original Satoshi world just because...it's against the government.
Did you also cheer on FTX and SBF breaking every government rule also? Guess not!

So, who should I support, the guy saying this:

When?

They have only the right to regulate those altcoins and tokens which are securities. Over other altcoins they don't have any regulatory oversight.

And much more important: They only regulate trading activities in the US, not worldwide - i.e. for 4% of the world population only. That includes ICOs if they're also targeted to US investors or take place in the US. But altcoins can conduct ICOs outside of the US and exclude US investors, and they're not affected by the SEC at all (they may be affected by decisions of their own national authorities though).

I think you mean CBDCs, or what is SBDC? CBDC is not a direct competitor to Bitcoin. It's a competitor to stablecoins and virtual money providers like PayPal, because it's a fiat-linked asset.

Bitcoin currently is too volatile to be a competitor, it could however be a competitor in the future. The point is: CDBCs will not compete at the same market for the public that buys Bitcoin today. So CBDCs will only have minor incidence on Bitcoin's price. The only scenario where I can see harm to Bitcoin's price would be a Tether insolvency because CBDCs took away their clients. But I don't think this is highly likely.

Indeed, at this time, the SEC is not trying to claim that Bitcoin is a security. 

Accordingly, according to the position of the SEC, Bitcoin is not subject to regulation by this government organization.  However, the SEC claims that it has every right to regulate tokens, altcoins, and stablecoins.  Thus, this state organization is trying to take control of the entire financial system of the virtual space. 

It should also not be forgotten that SEC executives have repeatedly spoken positively about the SBDC.  And SBDC is a direct competitor to Bitcoin. 

Therefore, we can conclude that further attacks on the first cryptocurrency by state regulators are still ahead.  In particular, accusations against Bitcoin are likely to be related to the fact that the functioning of its network is harmful to the environment.

Uhm, another bullshit.

SEC regulates securities. Bitcoin is not a security. Please do not incorporate centralized coins and tokens with Bitcoin. Bitcoin won't go down along with it.

Government regulation toward cryptocurrency is a certainty, without a doubt it will come sooner or later for whatever reason.

---

That is absurd at best. There is clarity between what is securities and what is not. The distinction is clear, there is no reason it should be perceived as a support toward SEC.


In fact, Gary Gensler already suggests way long ago that everything other than Bitcoin can be considered as a securities.

The SEC has a clear goal, and that is to protect the rules of a part of the financial system of the US - trading with "securities".

That's not about being "good people" or not. It's simply things a public authority has to do: enforcing rules set by the legislature of the country.

The SEC isn't entitled to "make money from this market" I don't know the exact rules but I'd be quite confident the US laws have some strict protection in force to prevent SEC officials from "insider speculation".

You may be referring to possible corruption allegations (for example due to SBF's family ties to some SEC officials). But I also think if the SEC made something shady here it would be discovered, as a lot of eyes are on them. The US is not Argentina 

I think you should watch this news, and this is what the SEC has done for us, helping the community get rid of scammer, and centralized shitcoin projects. You guys are bitcoin maximalists, it's understandable that you hate CZ, but if you're in favor of the SEC it's actually a bit confusing.
You guys are bitcoin maximalists, it's understandable that you hate CZ, but if you're in favor of the SEC it's actually a bit confusing. Supporting the SEC is no different from helping the government regulate the cryptocurrency market, and bitcoin is a part of that.
https://twitter.com/bitcoinlfgo/status/1671176719737425921

Is it naive to believe that what the SEC is doing is for the benefit of the community? Are they really such good people? You are right, today's world is operating when money and personal interests always come first, what the SEC is doing is for their benefit, they want to make more money from this market.

It is difficult to know how big the greed of the SEC is, although there is an agreement between the SEC and Binance, I believe everything is not over yet. Let time tell all, I predict the SEC will have another wave of attacks on us in the near future.