Topic: The SEC is right. It's not about Bitcoin, it's about centralized shitcoins. - page 2. (Read 584 times)

It's probably because Binance, for example, is too closely associated with Bitcoin that it appears to many that Binance represents Bitcoin in one way or another. Of course, while Binance indeed helped a lot in giving people convenient access to Bitcoin, it simply isn't true. As a matter of fact, the way Binance does business with Bitcoin is exactly what Bitcoin finds problematic and tries to solve.

While I agree that "anything which is not really decentralized is going to collapse, as it should," I think it will not be happening soon. If we are to ask a crypto layman of the first thing that comes to his/her mind when talking of Bitcoin, I'm afraid he/she might not even mention decentralization but possibly Coinbase or Binance.

Things will certainly improve in the future. Time will come people won't anymore care when a centralized Bitcoin-related business collapses.

I have not heard of the SEC making this about Bitcoin in some way or another. I think that mostly came from rumors and hearsay from the community after hearing the news of SEC going against multiple crypto. That became SEC going against all crypto and that became SEC is going against Bitcoin.

Its a laughable thought, because thats not true. The SEC is not going against Bitcoin nor could it, if it wanted to.

The best thing to do is not to spread further FUD about Bitcoin every time the broader mention of cryptocurrency is in the news. Anything which is not really decentralized is going to collapse, as it should.

You're totally right ... it's very difficult to prosecute things like rugpulling. I think the only way is analyzing communications: if something can be interpreted as "promising a return" then you can be violating laws against misleading advertising.

I appreciate your honesty Cardano was a coin I initially also considered interesting (due to its whitepaper and PoS algorithm). However, the way it was conceived, with an enormous premine, and a completely centralized development - in the end, it can only be described as a security.

What's however a bit paradoxical is that the SEC move's idea is customer protection. But those customers who had bought at overvalued prices (maybe because they thought it was decentralized) are now losing money. Not beautiful. But what should the SEC do? The SEC hasn't pushed down Cardano coins directly, it were speculators considering the "security" categorization as "bad news" and a reason to short the coin. There is no way to fix this mess without collateral damage.

The whole point of the agreement is that that Binance US's structure will be more transparent after the agreement. So there is some benefit for the customers of the exchange, and that's what's important in this case. The rest of the crypto world should not be affected (only by price volatility).

- DAI - yep, it has lots of centralized elements.
- Monero - No. In earlier post I mentioned it as one of the few altcoins which are decentralized and not securities (see here for a list of those I consider decentralized, with some edge cases like Dash)

For me it was pretty clear since I saw what the Howey test is about that many coins would fall under the "security" umbrella. The centralized management, profit expectations, advertising, PoS as "common enterprise" are all elements which can't be ignored, but were ignored by the exchanges. There were already many hints from SEC officials, I believe even still during the Trump presidency when Gensler still wasn't leading it.

The problem in my opinion was that the US exchanges depended deeply on income from trading with coins of this category. Maybe even some calculated that a fine would be less problematic than delisting all coins which were in danger to be declared "securities". It will be interesting how the end result of this "purging" will be: if they chose to delist all coins in danger, or register as securities exchange for the coins where this may be possible, etc.. Of course, if Ethereum is declared a security (which is perfectly possible in my opinion) then there will be more turbulences ahead.

While i'll sort of agree the rest of stuff you said, i don''t see the part i bolded quite accurate. Those were securities after SEC said so. So they were only trading securities after they were declared as securities. It's safe to assume that most CEXes acted in good faith that those would be utility coins/tokens.

That being said, there was lot of shady stuff happening which i never understood to be legal, like "staking" for example. It wasn't staking as in securing the chain, it was just paying interest for keeping tokens "locked". Most likely those were even lended elsewhere.

One thing that still weirded me out is that CEXes like binance were giving lambos and other prices for volume manipulation when they were still starting their operation. I think many of them still hold "trading competition", which is a misleading name as it only counts how much volume you manage to make, and obviously those affected to price as well. Which makes it a price manipulation.

That just can't be legal. I guess SEC moves step b step and this was most urgent issue.

I'm actually wondering what the fuss is all about... because hasn't the SEC (or at least US watchdogs, I can't remember the threads from before) already made it clear they specifically look at how decentralised a project is to determine if it's a security? Bitcoin passed the test easily, Ethereum, I think has made strong cases over the years at improving that, but few other coins come close to Bitcoin's structure (or lack of). Hence why almost everything else is a shitcoin.

The SEC works solely in the interests of the big owners. Any stock exchange or project can declare itself bankrupt, and no SEC can stop it. In fact, anyone can go bankrupt, because nobody knows how things will really go tomorrow or later. What is happening now is just a game of big people.

That is if SEC is even protecting the interest of the public for real, I do not believe this because you can't tell me that FTX customers find just disappeared into thin air, where have the money gone to? Who are the accomplice of this FTX madness? Just that Sam guy and his so called assistant in crime? I do not believe that, if the SEC chairman is into other projects in the space and not Bitcoin then there is more that meet the eye, they are pretending to be working for the public but they are not, it's always about the money.

Then what are you doing on Bitcointalk?


You realize that by saying you're an investor you've just handed the SEC a victory, acknowledging they were right about Cardano?


Stop chewing used tinfoil hats!


The SEC is not in charge of taxing or planing taxing anything, that's the IRS and they are already taxing income from crypto in the US.


Good, then you agree with Satoshi that leaving your coins in charge of a 3rd party is sooooooo stupid?
That you should use cryptos as a p2p method of transferring value and as a method of protecting your wealth?
So, you understand that by taking the side of exchanges and shitcoin centralized money printing here, you're just as bad as a banker arguing against Satoshi?


Bullshit!
The reality is that 90% would support everyone from Hitler to the Rostchilds to the Reptilians to the same government and SEC if that would mean the price of the shitcoin they hold would double overnight even if it means killing Bitcoin!
Why should I care about some shitcoin lovers when all they do all day long is bashing Bitcoin and describe it as old low specs high tech that can't do a thing and is million years behind their stellar shitcoin?

Why should I take the side of Binance when they were charging more for Bitcoin withdrawals while making their shitcoin clone 20 times cheaper, not to mention it putting it on top in search results if you search for Bitcoin?
Why should take the side of CZ when he only has one purpose, to make his BNB replace Bitcoin everywhere?

The SEC is part of the government, it's strange that these people are always opposing and slandering the government on a daily basis, but they are on the side of the SEC in this case. Let's all not forget that the government has never been friendly or in love with bitcoin. Just because the SEC didn't mention bitcoin this time doesn't mean they favor it.

I am like you, I am here for the crypto market, not just bitcoin, bitcoin is just a part, not all. If we are supporting the SEC to destroy binance, and destroy all altcoins, that is no different than we are supporting the destruction of bitcoin.

I don't understand why bitcoin maximalists would support the SEC in this situation. The fact that the SEC doesn't mention bitcoin directly doesn't mean they don't intend to attack it, what they are doing is planned, and they are slowly looking to control the entire industry and including bitcoin.

I don't hate bitcoin maximalists when they get annoyed with centralized exchanges and altcoins. They have their reasons, but they should take a close look at what the SEC is doing and what they want.

You are right, what the SEC is doing is for their own benefit, they are very hungry to regulate this potential market. If they succeed, we will become their next tax collection.

Sorry brother, I don't exists in crypto space only for Bitcoin, if the SEC is trying to crucify projects like Cardano I have every right to hate what they are doing, because I am a investor too.

It makes sense and also believable if we say that SEC isn't going for Bitcoin but at the same time they claimed they are helping the people from losing money, but you will be surprised that this whole move is for their own benefits.

If I am wrong why did they come into agreement with Binance exchange? What benefits for the people that are into crypto after this agreement? Stop deceiving yourself.

It's not every other coins apart from Bitcoin are only centralized shitcoins, or you are ready to call DAI a centralized shitcoin? How about Monero?

Interesting, you're painting the SEC as the crypto universe's watchful protector, huh? That's a fascinating viewpoint! Who wouldn't welcome a steadfast defender against the onslaught of 'shitcoins'? Here's a thought, though: Could it be that the so-called 'worthless' ventures aren't all that futile? And what of the individuals who struck gold by wagering on them? The border separating a ground-breaking concept and a 'shitcoin' can be pretty thin, right? Yet, if the SEC wishes to take the role of Harry Potter's Sorting Hat, who are we to resist?

Your opinion on Bitcoin's dominance is endearing, indeed. It's as if every altcoin is merely hitching a ride on Bitcoin's success, no? Let's not overlook that many of these 'other' coins are pioneers in their own lanes. As for those seeking instant wealth, you've got a point. They often discover the tough truth: there's no such thing as a free lunch, especially not in crypto. Eagerly waiting for the spectacle at the next Bitcoin halving!

The SEC wants to consolidate people around Bitcoin and its attempts to do so are not unsuccessful. The SEC may be trying to protect investor citizens by sanctioning Binance US but logging into crypto or other exchanges is of the individual's free will. No one forces anyone to buy coins. If Bitcoin's dominance covers half of the market, altcoins cover the other half. We can't put the blame on other coins by calling it shitcoin.

There are necessarily rotten apples everywhere and after they are sorted out, we'll be on our way. It is also necessary to look at the behavior of people who invest in shitcoins in the crypto markets. These are people who want to get rich fast and they want to enjoy their life without effort but fail every time. All these developments show that in the next halving Bitcoin will diverge with all other coins. The regulatory stance of SEC seems to be something beneficial for Bitcoin.

          Have you ever thought about the fact that all this concerns speculative operations with coins and tokens? If you use most crypto projects for their intended purpose, then decentralization is preserved.
          Most people in the crypto world have taken a wrong turn. They try to maximize profits, but they forgot about the basic principles. Why was blockchain technology developed with its derivatives? When you go the wrong way, then there will be much more obstacles. This is what we have seen in recent years.

Well, that might be something good for those of us who are long-sighted and see the future, but if we see it from a short-term perspective, it will surely affect Bitcoin as well because disturbing exchanges that allow people to buy and sell Bitcoins will surely have some impact on Bitcoin and the overall market, and we have seen that happening, SEC might have clear intentions of removing coins and tokens they consider securities and Bitcoin isn't one according to them, but their approach will hurt Bitcoin too and they know it.

Also, even if they don't consider Bitcoin a security and aren't fighting directly against it, I'm pretty sure that they don't want Bitcoin to prosper as well because what they basically want is no decentralization at any level, and Bitcoin is decentralized to its core which won't be a good thing for them in the long-run.

But I read an article, this is the link where Davidson says that Gengsler is abusing his position as SEC chair, that's why Davidson made a petition asking Gengler to resign as SEC chair because he is said to be abusive and using the position to harass crypto exchanges.

So, this can be a fight between the SEC not because they see something wrong, which in fact is a shortcoming that is not there in the crypto exchanges, instead the problem is in the SEC itself.

Source: https://cointelegraph.com/news/breaking-us-lawmakers-file-sec-stabilization-act-to-fire-gary-gensler

Nearly all crypto projects are about running away with investors money, they do it because it's perfectly legal to do. There is no contract between an investor and the developer, like in real life projects. People buy Bitcoin or Ethereum, which is not illegal, then they use them to buy a shitcoin, which is also not illegal, the devs don't work on their project, which is also not illegal. Maybe some galaxy brain lawyers could find a way to build a case against the crypto developers, because it's all a scam from the perspective of the spirit of the law.

Yes, of course the causality is a bit more complicated. But the ICO mania led to the problems with centralization and security-like business models in the altcoin sector. I don't know which was the first exchange offering "staking" - if I remember right it was first a service for holders of PoS coins, but it got quickly out of control, being offered even for Bitcoin.

And there, for me, is the indirect causality between the ICO mania and the current SEC action. Imo you're right that FTX was the main trigger, but FTX had offered all the "bad things" which had become commonplace after the ICO mania: an own token, staking and "pseudo-DeFi".


I agree partly with you that transparency and rationality is a bit lacking in the SEC action. I prefer, in reality, the way the European Union handled the topic, with a transparent regulation (Markets in Crypto-Assets or MiCa) targeting exchange transparency/solvency and security-like business models in the altcoin sector -- which are not prohibited but they have to follow transparency guidelines (a standarized whitepaper) to offer their coins in the EU, from 2024 on. But I think in general the SEC action regarding "staking" services (like in the Coinbase lawsuit) and "securities" is understandable.

At least Binance seems to have reached a first agreement with the SEC, so the biggest danger (Binance blowing up as a consequence of the SEC action) seems to be more distant now.

Yes, it's not about bitcoin and I'm happy with that. However, the point I criticize is that it is not a coincidence that all these cases came to light while the halving was so close. Their intentions may be good, but the timing is wrong. The fact that this timing is wrong also causes us to question goodwill. Otherwise, with the price shown by Bitcoin, it became clear that the issue is not about bitcoin. Many people are now conscious of such issues and do not sell their bitcoins. What I am glad is that these conscious people are not selling their bitcoins because of these lawsuits.

Control is of course necessary. I'm not against audits, maybe they will make the crypto market better, but what I'm stuck with is the timing of these lawsuits.

Obviously yes it you see the general sentiment of the crypto community, mostly all of them are in favour whatever SEC has done. Even though this might ene up with these big currencies being correct yet this will be good for overall moderation of the crypto community. This will ensure all the shitcoins are now aware of that fact that SEC can come anytime to hammer your activities. And obviously as you said the best part is that bitcoin is not that severally impacted with all this.