Topic: Why are stable coins free from SEC ? (Read 551 times)

Stablecoins are essentially the same fiat currency, but in a digital shell. But at the same time, stablecoins are not managed by the state, but mainly by private businesses. States, if desired, can completely prohibit the circulation of stablecoins that use their currency as collateral. Therefore, it is hardly worth arguing that states cannot control stablecoins. Apparently they don't need it yet.

In my opinion, stablecoins that have state currencies as collateral do not fall under the jurisdiction of the SEC, since they cannot be classified as securities. Indeed, unlike securities, their value is relatively stable.

The SEC is the ace up the manipulator's sleeve. Stable coins are not the most tidbit, so SEC tries to avoid them. Everything in this world is bought and sold, including the actions of government agencies, which seemingly should stand on the side of the law.

Most of them yeah but a few are decentralized. I don't think the stable coins are from SEC, so if there are any issue that arises from them, SEC will not be quiet but rather they will make a noise in order to warn the public about it and they may try to help the victim get their lost funds. SEC doesn't tolerate a crypto project even if it's centralized. They even sue XRP, and I think they also questioned BUSD.

There might be others that I forgot or didn't heard of. SEC are not biased but they are only doing their duties very well. Despite of it, a lot of people are still against with them. These people can be butthurt that their supported projects are being hunted and shut down by the said regulatory body.

Personally I believe that SEC going after BUSD is a personal attack on Binance exchange and Cz imstead of it having anything to do with BUSD breaking any law like been an unregistered security. We have more worst stablecoin that aren't been attacked like USDT but they're still been allowed to operate freely. It's not a news that SEC were looking for means to go after Binance exchange and have tired several allegations without having any positive feedback until they went after their stablecoin and have forced Binance to seize support for the stablecoin (Binance is doing that slowly). SEC is unlikely to go after other major stablecoin because they can easily defend the fact that they aren't security but I still don't understand why BUSD was unable to defend itself.


The SEC attack on the industry is a planned out attack, and going after stablecoin first won't have had more impact of fear as going after projects issuing coins/tokens did because stablecoin aren't securities but these tokens been minted out of nowhere are all securities and they can be easily taken down. Besides stablecoin aren't the backbone of the industry, the market was there before stablecoin got introduced and even after they're gone the market will still be active. If the current stablecoin get destroyed by the SEC, new ones will emerge and start from where the previous ones stop and the new ones will be more immune to SEC lawsuits so the SEC know what they're doing not going after stablecoin first.

In overall, it would really be entirely be depending on their own preference and once a certain thing that would really be out of their interest or standard then for sure banning would really be next in line but if goes

abide on the laws and regulations or simply centralized like those stablecoins then expect that it would really be just simply pass right through! It do really sucks on having this kind of management but there's nothing we can do when SEC turns out to make out some move and making those decisions which it would neither be affecting the entire crypto space or not. They would be always having those common line that everything of this would really be according or just simply protecting citizens with a very volatile asset which i dont see for it to be bad but on major part, they are really that too much with these kind of decisions.

So how you would really be making yourself do able to go with the flow out of these decisions made by them?

The argument they are going to use against stable coins will be different than the argument they used against icos, before bitcoin was created there were other visionaries that created their own currencies, however those coins had the fatal flaw that they were centralized, so the governments simply declared those coins were too similar to their fiat, confiscated everything and then those coins disappeared, Satoshi knew this, which is most likely why he hid his identity from the beginning and made bitcoin a decentralized currency, and you can be sure they will use that argument again but this time they will use it against stable coins.

Do you think this is a personal grudge with no one behind it? just because he was rejected makes him an obstacle to the progress of the crypto industry? A lot of people are saying the same thing as you are out there about Gary
Gensler, but is that really the reality?, I think problems in rejection work are common.

Firstly, because it is regulated by law and continuously monitored so there are no problems whatsoever related to it, talking about money laundering can still be monitored, it is quite logical that stablecoins are not a problem for the government, on the other hand because they also have to have dollars to determine the value of each coin.

It’s not the SEC but rather the guy who is leading it. He is using the function of the SEC to manipulate the market in every possible way. Geinsler is reportedly applying on Binance or Coinbase(I’m not sure what’s the exact exchange) before and he got turn down. Now he is using his power to crackdown crypto that once he was interested to join in.


Yeah, but main reason is major stablecoin is regulated by the law that’s why they can’t touch it and not the lack of trying

I've always read and heard that the SEC or authorities impose regulations or ban cryptocurrencies by saying that they are highly volatile and investors can lose money if they get involved with them, and they say that they are protecting the investors by banning these things. This was also said about the ICOs when they started banning ICOs back in the day when they were too hyped and then a lot of projects started scamming people out of their money using ICOs.

Authorities started banning or imposing regulations on ICOs based on the fact that they offer volatile tokens which can cause their investors losing money, and the same thing is for cryptocurrencies, but since stablecoins are not volatile, there is basically no concept of losing money if someone is buying stablecoins.

In my personal opinion, because stable coins now may be owned by the government, it's not like Bitcoin, where up until now we don't know who owns stablecoins. Nowadays, there is no decentralized one. Everything is centralized. Stablecoins are the same as paper money in general. The difference is that they are digital.
correct me if I'm wrong

Well if you don't know, the SEC ruined BUSD for Binance exchange, this stable coin is no more in operation, that's one down, it could be the end but something tells me that stable coin will be the next target in the future, that's if SEC is still going to be in form like they are today, and if the other stablecoins have not take any legal steps themselves, or settle the SEC one way or the other.

Truly if the SEC wants to bring crypto down for good they would have gone after Stablecoins first, I mean this would surely deliver a massive blow to crypto industries and the market would be instantly in red, not like the 17k dump that Bitcoin did in the past month, imagine bringing USDT down, this will cripple Bitcoin for good.

I believe that no crypto assets except Bitcoin is save from the SEC.

Although stable cryptocurrencies are also classified as cryptocurrency there is no serious regulation for these cryptocurrencies since they are a fully centralized structure and their counterpart is held as a reserve.

The fact that there are reserves depending on the supply amount and that these reserves are not disclosed transparently, of course, causes us to consider these cryptocurrencies as a little risky. However, since they are controlled by a central institution and their prices are fixed they can be exempt from many regulations and regulations.

Regarding the issue concerning stablecoins and governments, I believe that following the Terra and Luna cases, governments have begun to tighten their oversight of stablecoins. Countries like the United States have enacted regulations such as the "Toomey Introduces Legislation to Guide Future Stablecoin Regulation" to exercise more control. In my opinion, their surveillance remains in place, but for whose benefit, I am uncertain.

The plausible rationale being discussed behind the scenes is as follows: The relationship between stablecoins and central bank digital currencies (CBDCs) could be developing without public knowledge. Stablecoins themselves are centralized assets, making them susceptible to regulatory influence.

They are altcoins and centralized by companies create those stable coins. They are not safe from SEC. regulations and we soon will see more regulations on stable coins especially after the fiasco of Terra and UST stable coin depeg months ago in May 2022.

Hearing Entitled: Understanding Stablecoins’ Role in Payments and the Need for Legislation. It was hosted in April 2023 but more events like this on stable coins will be hosted in future.

Stable coins are very risky especially small stable coins which were abundantly created in the last two to three years. They are not strong like Tether USD (USDT) and their treasuries are unknown that cause big risk of depeg when some attacks executed against their stable coins.

I don't believe governments will ban stable coins but they will regulate it more by some reasons. First to do their taxation better and second to derail citizen interest on stable coin and attract them to CBDCs.

In a sense they are backed by fiat, which at the same time are currencies they are able to control. For that matter, since they can regulate the parent currency and pretty much control the stable coin they can basically control the stablecoin, which means they don't need to ban it for that matter. At the end of the day, stablecoins besides supporting the staking community of the cryptocurrency world and at the same time those p2p peeps, they don't hold that much bearing after all. What we should be worried about is the fact that they are not allowing altcoins to flourish which is arguably more important than stablecoins itself. If this keeps up this will literally kill cryptocurrencies in the US, regardless if bitcoin is allowed in it or not.

I could be wrong, but according to me most of the classic stablecoins are not, according to the SEC, not securities subject to SEC regulations and claims ? The issue with Binance is more global, and BUSD is more of a "side claim" to the main issues, as BUSD is involved in schemes that Binance does that violate SEC regulations.

The most important thing is the algorithm behind the stablecoins and the provision of stablecoins. Many people remember the cases when steiblcoins were decoupled from the dollar (in the case of USTC there was a complete collapse). That's why we need an audit of steiblcoins to understand how much they can be trusted

A stablecoin is never discussed or criticized as much as Bitcoin. Even if a country bans cryptocurrencies, in most cases Bitcoin-centric measures are taken. The positive thing about stablecoins is that the value of these stablecoins does not increase or decrease due to which people never invest in these stablecoins and users only convert their money into stablecoins for their own needs, this is probably the only difference with Bitcoin. 

Along with the stable coin, due to which different countries do not discuss much about this stable coin. Crypto exchanges are allowed in most countries but I don't understand why Bitcoin is not allowed. Every exchange has the benefit of selling bitcoins, in the case that every exchange has such benefits, then people of a country can easily buy and sell bitcoins by having an account in that exchange, then why not directly allow bitcoins in all countries.

I do think the stable coins are more centralized and haslve probably bowed to the SEC regulation, that's why it may seem free from SEC. I can bet if there were to be any issue arising from a stable coin becoming non-existent suddenly after scamming customers of their coins, that the SEC will become quiet about it.
The name is stable coins as it is, why should the SEC even bother about charging much when it is more about gaining customers that would adopt a rather controlled centralized network.

Maybe because they haven't found any perfect replacement for it. Or the fact that they are making profits from those. Another thing that comes to my mind is, they don't need to. As those stablecoins are pegged to the US Dollar, the government can easily manipulate the market by just manipulating the actual USD. Unless they see any potential threat, they will hold on to this and lurk in the shadow. When the time is right or wrong based on what may happen, they will make their move.

As long as they are in control of anything, they will never change that or go after that. So the whole thing to me is all about the power to control. I'm not sure tho. But to me this looks like a valid reason to hold the operation.