Topic: The SEC is right. It's not about Bitcoin, it's about centralized shitcoins. - page 3. (Read 587 times)
June 18, 2023, 11:05:27 AM
The loss of one shitcoin like XRP is actually the loss of most cryptocurrencies that's been around for more than 10 years. Gensler is not your friend and certainly not a friend of BTC maximalists either. We'd all be surprised by what we don't know behind his facade.
It's about centralized shitcoins that Genler once shill like Algorand and then there's Prometheum that nobody knows about yet had registered to SEC?
Prometheum has a centralized chain also. Genslar had been the leech in this industry for a long time even in the start of FTX.
June 18, 2023, 10:56:50 AM
Instead, the accusations are deeply related to the mess the altcoin world has become in the last years, mostly since the "ICO craze" of 2017/18. More than 95% of all altcoins, I would estimate 98-99%, are managed in a completely centralized way, with a team in charge of everything collecting large profits.
I agree with half of what you said above; I don't think the ICO mania had anything to do with the SEC's current scrutiny of crypto. I think disasters like FTX and all the other collapses that caused a lot of people to lose a lot of money caught the attention of regulators (though the SEC does seem to have its eyes on staking coins and the like). But then I have my fears. Whether or not SEC is targeting bitcoin, I am concerned that if SEC wins this battle, their next step is to increase domination. It is not bitcoin today doesn't guarantee that it cannot be bitcoin tomorrow. The whole drama is becoming worrisome and its effect is heavily felt on the general market and not only on the altcoins. We have suffered the bear market for a long time, SEC should allow the market rest.
June 18, 2023, 09:25:19 AM
The SEC is not our enemy nor it was against crypto adoption but they are against useless projects that scammers tried to get some space on known exchanges and use this as a medium to scam innocent people. Unfortunately, most of us misunderstood what they want to happen in the crypto space and that is to wipe out all shitcoins that flooded the market due to rising complaints against them.
They are helping the crypto space free from such fraudulent acts and scam projects - and I see their vital role in improving and building trust.
They are helping the crypto space free from such fraudulent acts and scam projects - and I see their vital role in improving and building trust.
From what you said, it seems that the SEC is not just trying to make the crypto industry cleaner by creating a regulatory framework to regulate the industry and prevent fraudulent projects from being created freely. On the other hand, SEC is also trying to help investors like us get rid of scam projects, and we will have a healthier investment environment. If that's really what they're doing, then they're really too good, and I'll support them with both hands.
But are they really that good?
June 18, 2023, 06:04:41 AM
The SEC is not our enemy nor it was against crypto adoption but they are against useless projects that scammers tried to get some space on known exchanges and use this as a medium to scam innocent people. Unfortunately, most of us misunderstood what they want to happen in the crypto space and that is to wipe out all shitcoins that flooded the market due to rising complaints against them.
They are helping the crypto space free from such fraudulent acts and scam projects - and I see their vital role in improving and building trust.
They are helping the crypto space free from such fraudulent acts and scam projects - and I see their vital role in improving and building trust.
June 18, 2023, 04:50:18 AM
I understand that the SEC is against a few selection of Altcoins that were labelled as securities, and not Bitcoin or Cryptocurrencies in general. However, firstly, I don't agree with the declaration of BNB as a security and a few others coins as well, I don't understand why it was declared as such, perhaps because it's a product of Binance, i haven't investigated any further. Secondly, the whole lawsuit may not be against Bitcoin, but it's hurting it in the process as well.
Anyway, I just read that the SEC has reached an agreement in order to keep the exchange open. Thus, I'm suspecting a speedy recovery for the market quite soon.
Source: https://www.binance.com/en/feed/post/660451?ref=500919000&utm_campaign=app_share_link
Anyway, I just read that the SEC has reached an agreement in order to keep the exchange open. Thus, I'm suspecting a speedy recovery for the market quite soon.
Source: https://www.binance.com/en/feed/post/660451?ref=500919000&utm_campaign=app_share_link
June 18, 2023, 12:37:01 AM
So let's calm down. This is not against Bitcoin. It's against shady business models where companies pretend they are decentralized but aren't, and want a cheaper and less consumer-protecting way to finance their businesses (or directly run away with your money). And it's also about crypto exchanges pretending they aren't banks - but they are, as long as they offer products like so-called "staking" (which nothing has to do with real proof-of-stake).
The exact lawsuit is alleging fraud by Binance in addition to operating as an unregistered securities exchange. So they're dragging Changpeng Zhao through the mud even if it's only about altcoins. This isn't even counting the Coinbase lawsuit either, filed at the same time.
Knowing how these federal agencies operate, if these were really about shitcoins, the U.S. government would've been more adamant about clarifying the regulatory framework on crypto instead of throwing out lawsuits to every exchange in their jurisdiction. Perhaps their intentions truly are to protect the consumers, but a lot of nefarious initiatives starts off with good intent.
June 17, 2023, 08:12:47 PM
Instead, the accusations are deeply related to the mess the altcoin world has become in the last years, mostly since the "ICO craze" of 2017/18. More than 95% of all altcoins, I would estimate 98-99%, are managed in a completely centralized way, with a team in charge of everything collecting large profits.
I agree with half of what you said above; I don't think the ICO mania had anything to do with the SEC's current scrutiny of crypto. I think disasters like FTX and all the other collapses that caused a lot of people to lose a lot of money caught the attention of regulators (though the SEC does seem to have its eyes on staking coins and the like). But you're absolutely correct about many of the newer coins having teams behind them and being so much less decentralized than bitcoin. That's ultimately what turned me off of PoS coins, as I could see that if there's a team in charge anything could happen. I saw NEO's staking system completely change for the worse, and TRX recently changed things up with holders basically having no say in the matter. All of that goes against what bitcoin and crypto in general stand for.
These actions against exchanges on the part of the SEC are ridiculous, though. They're not giving any guidelines on what's what, and they're just bringing charges against businesses trying to do the right thing (but not knowing exactly what the right thing is). Leave it to an alphabet agency to fuck things up big time.
June 17, 2023, 06:57:10 PM
of the many posts I've read, none of them mention that the SEC is targeting Bitcoin, but what they do to exchanges like Binance and Coinbase can have a significant impact on the crypto market globally and it really affects the valuation of Bitcoin. So indirectly, their actions also have an effect on Bitcoin and other coins.
What I've read several times is that the SEC is targeting the whole crypto world or crypto sector, and that they want the sector to stay small (at least in the US). See this post for example. Or the last sentence of your own post 
:[...] so the actions taken by the SEC also don't need to be justified because they really have bad intentions towards cryptocurrencies.
I have seen some of the communications of the SEC and it seemed to me more that they're worried about just these practices I describe in the OP: "pseudo-staking" and ICOs. They seemed more worried about consumer protection.Your conclusion is also a bit strange:
also, this means that Bitcoin and other coins have the potential to be banned in America if they so choose. they just need to mention that bitcoin threatens the existence of the dollar and ban it, I believe that the global crypto market will drop significantly.
I am not a legal expert but I believe the SEC cannot ban Bitcoin, not even in the US, because it's not a security. To ban it, a law would be needed, and it's difficult to imagine one in a democracy banning Bitcoin but not interfering in freedom of contract. I think the anti-bitcoin sector in the US (those around Elizabeth Warren) are trying another strategy: make Bitcoin/cryptocurrency services so unattractive with enormous KYC requirements that many wouldn't like to bother with that and simply quit investing. This is however another story for me, and isn't related to the current SEC action.@Wind_FURY : I don't really understand your theory
What do you mean with "making the dollar more in demand"? Increasing demand of dollars by making them more scarce? But how can a crackdown on (local!) crypto exchanges help with that? 
June 17, 2023, 06:41:50 AM
I agree with the op about the Bitcoin part, I've also mentioned it recently in another thread. SEC's position on Bitcoin is decent, fair. They want nothing to do with it because Bitcoin is not like the stuff they regulate. That being said, the SEC going after huge crypto companies has a negative impact overall, and on Bitcoin as well, because these are trusted companies that people use for cryptos, including Bitcoin. So I hope the lawsuits will be settled peacefully, without the companies needing to abandon the US market.
June 17, 2023, 03:59:22 AM
And nobody cares what the sec thinks or does because at the end this is a battle they can not 100% win. You shut one down another will just come up, best thing about decentralization.
Yeah, they may say whatever is convenient to make it look btc is not the target, but suing two of the top most exchange with huge btc volume can certainly shake the very core of the market. Most likely be the end of many investors going out of the crypto space.
This war will not end until the Russian occupiers try to seize the territory of Ukraine and until the last Russian occupier leaves Ukraine or lies down in its land. Now there are over 300,000 Russian soldiers on the territory of Ukraine who are shooting at Ukrainians with all types of weapons. Ukrainians are forced to defend their country, because they are killed only for their pro-Ukrainian position. That is, Russia wants to destroy Ukraine as a state and the Ukrainians themselves as a nation. Therefore, it is very strange to hear that, while defending their country, Ukrainians are fighting for the United States, and not for their freedom and independence.Yeah, they may say whatever is convenient to make it look btc is not the target, but suing two of the top most exchange with huge btc volume can certainly shake the very core of the market. Most likely be the end of many investors going out of the crypto space.
During the summer months, the offensive of the Armed Forces of Ukraine in the south will reach the Sea of Azov and cut Russia's land corridor to the Crimea. The Crimean bridge that Russia built to connect mainland Russia with the Crimean peninsula will also be destroyed. After that, the entire southern front of the Russians in Ukraine will crumble and the victory of Ukraine in this war will become obvious.
June 17, 2023, 03:33:48 AM
My curious question is, do the majority of crypto users care about centralized coins or not if most of their time in this space is only utilizing exchange services or in other words the exchange for them is everything, not the coin?
I think this question will be the reason why binance still has the "power" to exert influence apart from being considered the most trusted.
I think this question will be the reason why binance still has the "power" to exert influence apart from being considered the most trusted.
June 17, 2023, 01:20:57 AM
I'm tired to read all the comments in the vein of "the SEC is threatening the crypto world" or "the SEC wants Bitcoin to stay small". 
The SEC's action against Coinbase and Binance has quite clear accusations: these exchanges allowed trading of securities without being authorized to do so. And they offered services like "staking" which are quite similar to bank products and thus also need authorization.
Is any of these accusations related to Bitcoin? No. The SEC has already clarified that Bitcoin is not a security. So the accusations have nothing to do with Bitcoin.
Instead, the accusations are deeply related to the mess the altcoin world has become in the last years, mostly since the "ICO craze" of 2017/18. More than 95% of all altcoins, I would estimate 98-99%, are managed in a completely centralized way, with a team in charge of everything collecting large profits. The most notorious example are the premines. These businesses create coins out of thin air - just a "bug" of the fiat world many Bitcoiners want to "fix" - to pay for marketing, bounties and shills with tokens. These tokens and coins are ... securities.
You don't have to be even a Bitcoin maximalist - I tolerate altcoins with decentralized components and ICOs which are clearly focused on a non-crypto product - to see that these developments have nothing to do with Satoshi's ideal of a decentralized peer to peer cash.
So let's calm down. This is not against Bitcoin. It's against shady business models where companies pretend they are decentralized but aren't, and want a cheaper and less consumer-protecting way to finance their businesses (or directly run away with your money). And it's also about crypto exchanges pretending they aren't banks - but they are, as long as they offer products like so-called "staking" (which nothing has to do with real proof-of-stake).
It brings me hope that Bitcoin seems to be the least affected by the last price drop after the SEC accusations. People seem to begin to understand
The SEC's action against Coinbase and Binance has quite clear accusations: these exchanges allowed trading of securities without being authorized to do so. And they offered services like "staking" which are quite similar to bank products and thus also need authorization.
Is any of these accusations related to Bitcoin? No. The SEC has already clarified that Bitcoin is not a security. So the accusations have nothing to do with Bitcoin.
Instead, the accusations are deeply related to the mess the altcoin world has become in the last years, mostly since the "ICO craze" of 2017/18. More than 95% of all altcoins, I would estimate 98-99%, are managed in a completely centralized way, with a team in charge of everything collecting large profits. The most notorious example are the premines. These businesses create coins out of thin air - just a "bug" of the fiat world many Bitcoiners want to "fix" - to pay for marketing, bounties and shills with tokens. These tokens and coins are ... securities.
You don't have to be even a Bitcoin maximalist - I tolerate altcoins with decentralized components and ICOs which are clearly focused on a non-crypto product - to see that these developments have nothing to do with Satoshi's ideal of a decentralized peer to peer cash.
So let's calm down. This is not against Bitcoin. It's against shady business models where companies pretend they are decentralized but aren't, and want a cheaper and less consumer-protecting way to finance their businesses (or directly run away with your money). And it's also about crypto exchanges pretending they aren't banks - but they are, as long as they offer products like so-called "staking" (which nothing has to do with real proof-of-stake).
It brings me hope that Bitcoin seems to be the least affected by the last price drop after the SEC accusations. People seem to begin to understand
Actually no. Or more accurately, it might not be just about that. The rabbit hole might be deeper.
Tin-foil hats on.
Besides doing rate hikes, breaking crypto exchanges in the United States is part of a bigger plan to stop/limit the export of U.S. Dollars overseas. Why? Because the U.S. Government is aware that China might sell their U.S. Treasuries, then by making U.S. Dollars more in demand, it would prevent China from selling them unless it's at discounted prices. Plus an increase in Dollar demand would give the U.S. more allowance to print and buy more dumped Treasuries. It's a debt game and crypto exchanges might merely be casualties of the game.
June 17, 2023, 01:15:56 AM
I'm tired to read all the comments in the vein of "the SEC is threatening the crypto world" or "the SEC wants Bitcoin to stay small".
The SEC's action against Coinbase and Binance has quite clear accusations: these exchanges allowed trading of securities without being authorized to do so. And they offered services like "staking" which are quite similar to bank products and thus also need authorization.
Is any of these accusations related to Bitcoin? No. The SEC has already clarified that Bitcoin is not a security. So the accusations have nothing to do with Bitcoin.
...
The SEC's action against Coinbase and Binance has quite clear accusations: these exchanges allowed trading of securities without being authorized to do so. And they offered services like "staking" which are quite similar to bank products and thus also need authorization.
Is any of these accusations related to Bitcoin? No. The SEC has already clarified that Bitcoin is not a security. So the accusations have nothing to do with Bitcoin.
...
who said that the actions taken by the SEC were targeting Bitcoin? of the many posts I've read, none of them mention that the SEC is targeting Bitcoin, but what they do to exchanges like Binance and Coinbase can have a significant impact on the crypto market globally and it really affects the valuation of Bitcoin. So indirectly, their actions also have an effect on Bitcoin and other coins.
also, this means that Bitcoin and other coins have the potential to be banned in America if they so choose. they just need to mention that bitcoin threatens the existence of the dollar and ban it, I believe that the global crypto market will drop significantly. so the actions taken by the SEC also don't need to be justified because they really have bad intentions towards cryptocurrencies.
June 17, 2023, 01:10:12 AM
So let's calm down. This is not against Bitcoin. It's against shady business models where companies pretend they are decentralized but aren't, and want a cheaper and less consumer-protecting way to finance their businesses (or directly run away with your money). And it's also about crypto exchanges pretending they aren't banks - but they are, as long as they offer products like so-called "staking" (which nothing has to do with real proof-of-stake).
It brings me hope that Bitcoin seems to be the least affected by the last price drop after the SEC accusations. People seem to begin to understand
It brings me hope that Bitcoin seems to be the least affected by the last price drop after the SEC accusations. People seem to begin to understand
Don't be too quick to conclude because Bitcoin been less affected doesn't means people are begining to understand. Do you think if this lawsuit happened in 2022 when it was the main bear market that it won't have affected Bitcoin more than it did. I think why the dump isn't showing much on Bitcoin is because the market has let go of many of the weak hands and sellers and now mostly long term holders and diamond hands are in the Bitcoin market.
Altcoins still has many weak hands and that's one of the reasons they got the biggest dump and also from history, altcoins dump more whenever Bitcoin dump also the lawsuit is targeted at altcoins so they're also dumping because of that. SEC are targeting centralized exchange not bitcoin.
June 17, 2023, 12:24:32 AM
With the SEC attack it is now making sense and obvious to many on how most of these exchanges in a cloak work hand in hand with these so-called shit coins developers to scam people of their funds. It's due to out of emotional fear by investors thinking that the attack on Coinbase and binance may have effect on bitcoin so a good number had to panick sell which is why the bitcoin price is receding downwards but as the actual story gradual keeps on unfolding bitcoin would rise in price far beyond what it is currently as more investors returns.
June 17, 2023, 12:15:56 AM
This is why we can’t blame SEC that much since its their job to protect the interest of the public from those businesses who are taking advantage the ignorance of the public. Yes, they are not targeting Bitcoin but since those centralized exchanges are big enough to influence the whole market, the price of BTC are also reacting to this while the many is panicking. Let’s see how Binance will work on this, and i think they’ll face more problems with other country as well, hope they can settle this.
SEC is an independent agency so it can do anything but they have to prior to the general investors interest. If such a decision had been taken before the fall of FTX, many investors might not have been beggars. But the important thing is that there should be no allegations of harassment. The lawsuit against Binance has led to a major fall in the cryptocurrency market. If Binance manages their business properly we can expect them to get rid of this lawsuit soon. 
June 16, 2023, 09:53:22 PM
Investors get emotional because they think that Coinbase and Binance attack is an attack against their investments due to observing the falling prices of altcoins while it is wrong to sell bitcoin to buy altcoins unless you have a compelling reason and eventually try to buy more in the short term and not diversify your investments.
In addition, the proof-of-share coins have been used for financial instruments as many only buy them because they give higher APY without even thinking about these currencies. I do not think that the real target is the "ICO", but DeFi funding.
In addition, the proof-of-share coins have been used for financial instruments as many only buy them because they give higher APY without even thinking about these currencies. I do not think that the real target is the "ICO", but DeFi funding.
June 16, 2023, 08:29:21 PM
I'm tired to read all the comments in the vein of "the SEC is threatening the crypto world" or "the SEC wants Bitcoin to stay small".
I have not seen many opinions of this, but I agree with you that these statements are incorrect due to:
The SEC has already clarified that Bitcoin is not a security. So the accusations have nothing to do with Bitcoin.
Ultimately, the SEC labeling altcoins (that aren't decentralized in terms of network or distribution) as securities is a harsh, but acceptable move. Harsh because these altcoins might be trying to innovate in their own way and crypto has enabled them to do so. Acceptable because the sad reality is that losses and scams prevail more than good innovations in the world of altcoins.
Instead, the accusations are deeply related to the mess the altcoin world has become in the last years, mostly since the "ICO craze" of 2017/18. More than 95% of all altcoins, I would estimate 98-99%, are managed in a completely centralized way, with a team in charge of everything collecting large profits. The most notorious example are the premines. These businesses create coins out of thin air - just a "bug" of the fiat world many Bitcoiners want to "fix" - to pay for marketing, bounties and shills with tokens. These tokens and coins are ... securities.
You don't have to be even a Bitcoin maximalist - I tolerate altcoins with decentralized components and ICOs which are clearly focused on a non-crypto product - to see that these developments have nothing to do with Satoshi's ideal of a decentralized peer to peer cash.
You don't have to be even a Bitcoin maximalist - I tolerate altcoins with decentralized components and ICOs which are clearly focused on a non-crypto product - to see that these developments have nothing to do with Satoshi's ideal of a decentralized peer to peer cash.
Right on. I couldn't have said it better myself. The ICO craze has stained any possible innovation that could have alternatively used a bitcoin-like beginning, being a decentralized form of distribution and a decentralized, consensus-based network with a core team of developers. Instead, projects tried to jump-start their idea with the innovation of smart-contracts, and whether they had good or bad intentions had resulted in a permanent stain on the ability to cultivate innovation via a token/altcoin.
In short - Everything going on with the SEC is good for Bitcoin. Less centralized exchange activity and their listing of new & highly speculative coins, more highlight on decentralized exchanges, and increased validation that Bitcoin is not a security.
June 16, 2023, 08:13:39 PM
I agree, although Bitcoin will certainly be affected, its price in particular. Probably its image, too. But I fully support crypto regulations nevertheless. I even want regulations to be strict, so strict that people can't just easily create shitcoins out of thin air and use them to steal money from innocent individuals. I want regulations to be strong enough to prevent scam exchanges to simply come and go along with their users' money.
June 16, 2023, 06:57:13 PM
I agree. A lot of altcoins are trying to be like banks offering a percentage of returns on the initial investments made by its investors, and a lot of fraudulent personalities became rich and duped people off of their money because there aren't anything that holds them accountable for their actions. The SEC is just trying to make some service to the public, although it looks like they are targeting bitcoin because it is mainly targeting exchanges which offers a platform for cryptos that work like securities. It isn't something that is bad, but not completely good either. However, it will basically prune out a lot of bad apples in the crypto tree as they no longer have any platform to work with.
Jump to: