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.

Exactly, it is not as if the US government is protecting stable coins, and it should be obvious that it is the opposite, due to the existence of stable coins governments around the world lost the ability to more easily track the activities of the market participants, as if those coins did not existed then you will need to sell for fiat and receive an incoming transaction to your bank account, and then you could be subjected to all kind of questions about the source of your funds, so we can be sure that an attack on all stable coins is coming, we just do not know when it will happen.

Not all stable coins as save or free from SEC Commission, did you see latest news with BUSD as Binance stable coins must removed on their pair trading after losing against SEC. Actually only USDT as United State fiat are securing from SEC investigation and they won't have any new stable coins with difference name. SEC Commission is not good impact for cryptocurrency and not all stable coins are save from their investigating except with USDT, for securing your stable coins assets with long term holding USDT is the best option and until longer time not any investigate from  SEC Commission and keep secure as investment assets in the future.

I don't sure until how long investigate did by  SEC to all cryptocurrency coins except they have special coins without investigating yet USDT, but if have another popular new stable coins in the future actually will not secure from SEC.

SEC would mostly be regulating securities law, the idea of for profit investment schemes.  I dont know the legal definitions and how they view each blockchain but some companies especially the centralized ones willl work with government to stay in the clear.   The stable coin idea is a myth imo but they arent alone, many things completely recommended and regulated can fall apart despite ticking all the boxes they arent able to stay balanced.  The economy is not a government invention any more then the tide on the shore line does whats its told to any degree.
The dollar is global which can make that idea confusing because it could be most of the world is cast in that shadow, if only because trading partners dont want to be out of step on banking regulations I suppose.

It all depends on who is the issuer of the stable coins. The SEC can only affect what is in the jurisdiction of the United States. Also, the SEC needs to prove that a particular stablecoin is a security, and that is not easy to do. Therefore, most stablecoins are not subject to SEC oversight.

It's not just BUSD they are after, it's algorithmic stablecoins like Terra's UST they were fierce about stopping too.

This kind of stablecoin is what caused the whole crypto crash of 2022 in the first place and had no regulatory checks and balances to stop it from being unpegged, so that was very dangerous. Well the feds learned their lesson and banned algorithmic stablecoins in the USA.

Tether is another one I'm mistrustful about, because it's not 1:1 backed, so all shit will go loose again if any shady accounting is discovered.

Stable coins, such as Tether (USDT) or USD Coin (USDC), are designed to maintain a stable value tied to a specific asset, usually a fiat currency like the U.S. dollar. These stable coins strive to provide stability and eliminate the volatility commonly associated with other cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin or Ethereum.

While stable coins may not be exempt from regulation, they are often seen as less likely to fall under the regulatory purview of the SEC when compared to other types of cryptocurrencies. This is because stable coins backed by fiat currency are typically considered as a digital representation of the underlying asset.

No stable coins are typically made by the government.
While stable coins are not directly issued by governments, some projects may collaborate with financial institutions and follow regulatory guidelines. For example, USDC (USD Coin) is a stable coin co-founded by Coinbase and Circle, which follows a regulated framework and maintains transparency in its operations. Tether (USDT) is another popular stable coin that aims to maintain a 1:1 ratio with the U.S. dollar, but it has faced scrutiny regarding its financial backing.

According to your explanation, stablecoins are benefiting the US government and the USD. So can you explain to me why they are trying to destroy Binance's BUSD? According to the latest announcement, BUSD will be completely phased out in February 2024. BUSD used to be the 3rd largest stablecoin by market capitalization after USDT and USDC. I think the fact that the SEC or the government hasn't attacked stablecoins yet is because the timing is not right. They will probably find a way to destroy it when their CBDC is released, IMO.

Governments are simply not jumping to conclusions about various private and commercial stablecoins just yet. But this does not mean that after some time they will not be attacked by them. Stablecoins are essentially the digital currency of the same states whose national money is used by stablecoins as their collateral. For now, governments are busy issuing their own CBDCs, and they will presumably compete with the current decentralized and not-so-decentralized stablecoins. Therefore, governments will collect various facts of abuse in the field of implementation of these stablecoins and begin to gradually restrict their circulation. How this will end is hard to say. This will be influenced by many factors that, from the current position, may or may not occur.

This is about what I wanted to say. Dollar-backed stablecoins are generally beneficial to the US as a nation. For the amount of stablecoins issued into circulation, the cash mass of paper dollars should be withdrawn from circulation. On the one hand, interest and demand for the dollar is growing, even if it is digital, and on the other hand, inflation in the United States is decreasing, as the amount of cash is decreasing.

But in any case, there will be control over private and commercial stablecoins. States are just not in a hurry right now. They will take appropriate action when the right conditions are ripe for it.

The SEC's case against Binance, among other violations, was that they didn't register BUSD. Stablecoins aren't immune from government crackdowns but realistically, Bitcoin represents a greater threat to these government agencies than any asset backed coin. The government has the means to seize assets and render stablecoins useless. They obviously don't have this power with Bitcoin.

Stablecoins are backed by fiat currencies and are therefore in a sense not securities/speculative assets. They are called stable for a reason.

This fact alone is a great cause as to why the SEC’s not pushing to boycott the whole stablecoin market. For one it’s the mirror of reflection from the inside, allowing SEC to assume control over the little autonomy they have within the industry. Another is the fact that it would just be a massive bummer for everyone involved if they were to ban crypto, and with them trying to paint the picture that they aren’t cryptohaters. This wouldn’t sit well in tve PR

The SEC is just a tool in the hands of global bitcoin manipulators. When bitcoin needs to collapse, bad SEC decisions appear, and when the price needs to grow, SEC decisions are canceled. Stablecoins are a safe haven that they try not to touch (but only the major stablecoins).

Because they are not Security tokens and they are regulated through the issuer of the token. Security tokens by definition is transferring ownership rights and asset value to tokens such as stocks, bonds and etc. Stablecoins is just a digital dollar that is pegged by real USD on the banks.

SEC has no say on assets that is not an investment like Stablecoins since it's just a tokenized dollars while the rest of the Shitcoin which SEC being sued launch unregulated IDO and other form of funding to raise money in exchange for the tokens or simply they sell tokens of their company for a promise of return to investment.

Do you know where is SEC come from? they are coming from United State and probably will protect with their currency payment as dollar keep existing and have higher values for adopting around the world as payment currency transaction. There are not difference yet between stable coin in cryptocurrency or USDT with dollar using by United State citizen. SEC investigate with cryptocurrency have chance for replacing their currency and they will try many way how to make some coins have lower values and get cases with their rule.

But don't afraid with SEC against because XRP have to show the public how to beat SEC and success win due problem complicated almost two years. I don't think SEC is most danger community for investigating with cryptocurrency project, I believe one day later they will loss and give up against with cryptocurrency.

I think it is going to be basically keeping someone responsible for whatever may happen. If you have any stablecoin with a company that has offices in the USA that can respond to anything that may go wrong, I think it is going to matter and we are going to see it do well enough.

I understand that it is not a simple job and we are going to see a lot of troubles and investigations and courts and all that, but in the end it will be allowed to continue as long as SEC could put their hands on it. Right now, it is all like that and all the major ones have at least one office in the USA and if anything goes wrong SEC could just raid that office and investigate what's going on and they could decide on what went wrong as well.

Stablecoins really offer stability and solvency in the crypto space, especially when compared to bitcoin.

However, centralization and control can still be an issue for stablecoins. The involvement of regulators can create a degree of control to ensure transparency and compliance with financial regulations. This can be beneficial for the sustainable development of the cryptocurrency market, but at the same time raises questions about the independence and decentralization that cryptocurrencies aim for.

I don't think there's anything strange with that, they're already centralized thus, SEC can control that easily so they wouldn't need to hunt for them.

Stable coins aren't really different from CBDC so it's like their own as well. It's not that surprising anymore if they won't target the stable coins because all of them can provide proofs that they're legitimate backed up with real money.

That's the least that they can do for them to be stopped being hunted by the SEC.

You need to understand why SEC is after some particular coins and tokens and not USDT, BTC, ETH.
From the definition of securities, I quote:


That being said; Sec believes that more than 70% of tokens in the crypto market are believed to be securities and for them to be traded or sold in the United States, they need to be formally registered and anything without the registration is term as illegal and crime and that is why you see the other day, they Sued Coinabase, Matic, Solana, Avalanche, Cardano and others for Violating the SEC rules and regulations.

USDT on the other hand, the SEC has not ruled anything for the stablecoin but they fine Binance for issuing BUSD as security and that begs the question if they are hiding something from the public, stablecoins are not an investment in the US, they are redeemable to fiat in equivalent 1:1 ratio, perhaps they have been lobbying the SEC or did some registration to avoid been scrutinized because BUSD is not an investment and USDT is not an investment either. The two are never USDT at least to my basic level of understanding why SEC has been attacking other projects.

[1] https://www.thestreet.com/dictionary/s/security#:~:text=At%20a%20basic%20level%2C%20a,%2C%20mutual%20funds%2C%20and%20ETFs.

If they can show the proof of reserves for the stablecoins, there is no legal cases against the stable coins. That is the my view regarding your question. But it does not means it will not happen in the future.  We need the SEC to find the loopholes of the crypto market.

Maybe they gave also realized that the right target shouldn't be stablecoin but bitcoin, if you can win over the head, then other branches and tentacles could not be a threat to have victory over again, they have made series of attack on bitcoin and since it all avail to nothing, they also make moves in creating their own digital fiat called CBDC which the people still rejects to embrace the decentralized network only, we should know that without bitcoin, there's no existance for any form of digital currency be it stablecoin or altcoins because bitcoin is the head of cryptocurrency, they can't attack others than to set before ahead, whereas stable us not volatile as cryptocurrency, they are pegged with the USD standard rates, which is still fare and ok by them to an extent.

He's right about them being risky IMO, just based on some of the crypto disasters we've seen in the past year or so, but stablecoins harming the US economy?  Please, the US government is doing a damn good job doing that all by itself with its reckless monetary policies, heavy taxation, and the aftereffects we're now starting to see, e.g., inflation.  Compared to the carnage the government has left in its wake, stablecoins are nothing.

I snipped out the part where you said those coins are under scrutiny, but you're on the money about that.  My guess is that the banking lobbyists' power far outweighs the power of people fighting for crypto.  Banks have got to be the ones influencing politicians to go after stablecoins, requiring exchanges to implement KYC measures, and probably a bunch of other things we've not seen yet.  As an aside, the whole money laundering excuse they use is laughable on its face.  Compared to fiat, crypto is a tiny portion of the problem and doesn't deserve the heavy scrutiny IMO.

I would guess that it's obviously a situation where SEC is not doing a big thing about it, because most of them are not established in the USA. Which would be like saying "oh that French company can't sell here", and they can't just do that. This means that they can only stop them from doing any criminal thing inside the USA lands, and that's exactly what they have done already as well.

They investigated USDT before, and even punished them with an 18 million dollar fine if I am not wrong, and they have asked Binance to stop with binance.us if they keep BUSD going and there are talks about binance closing down BUSD completely. That two alone should show you that they are not just sitting and letting the stablecoins be.

I don't think stablecoins are being exempted from the suspecting eyes of the SEC. I don't know why you have this impression, but we have already heard of a number of statements coming from the SEC regarding stablecoins. And while I highly doubt that stablecoins are securities, the SEC is even interested to take a look at the assets which back them up. Furthermore, stablecoins are also perceived as a direct threat to the banks. They're not off the hook.

In my opinion, the thing that makes stable coins not too problematic so that they are free from the SEC is because coins are stable, the value does not change so there is no speculation, the developer states that every transaction that uses stable coins will immediately save real money, for example USD, so it doesn't make the SEC worry about being used for speculation as in other types of crypto.

Different types of stablecoins with different names and who launched them. An example of BUSD from Binance because the exchange that issues it, the SEC has more freedom to play. But what if the government issued its own Stablecoin in crypto form? looks safe or is always not taken seriously. That's why this distinction is quite clear. As long as it is centralized and the SEC itself is controlled under the auspices of certain institutions, it does not rule out the possibility that everything will go well. This is all still under the same title, which is only about profit control.

It's great that others have mentioned a lot of cases where the SEC expressed their negative attitude toward various stable coins. I want to focus on another matter. The SEC is pretty consistent on what fall under their regulations: securities or something very similar to securities. But here we hit a weird spot because the SEC seems to believe that stablecoins are close enough to securities that they should be registered as such. On the other hand, some argue that since there's no expectation of profiting when it comes to stablecoins, they aren't securities and thus shouldn't be under the SEC.
In any case, it seems that the op is wrong in assuming that stable coins are free from the SEC, at least if the SEC's position on the matter counts.

Most of the stable coins are bound into a local currency, for example, the BUSD, USDT and another stable coin which is bound with the USD price. They keep stable but not as always, remember the issue regarding the Luna with the pair of stable coins even though they called stable coins, unexpectedly people keep selling their assets and use the stable coins to prevent their losses, as long as the project of those coins does disobey the rule of the SEC there's nothing the issue with it. Like the recently added feature of the Paypal they release their coins too.

Stable coins are indeed things that make us curious because there are no problems like with other projects or coins, and in my opinion the factor that makes stable coins safe is that they use USD to support stable coins even though this fact is still difficult to prove. we'll see if later it's still safe and there's no problem or the problem will explode causing shocks in the market.

Not all stablecoins are safe but of course stablecoins that are accepted by the US government and the SEC will remain safe as they promote centralization and government control.

Recently PayPal launched its own stablecoin and it has a lot of support from the US government because PayPal is fully subject to US regulatory laws regarding KYC, AML is fully dollar backed of course this will enhance the dominance of the dollar around the world thanks to the widespread services of PayPal around the world.

Control is what the United States seeks, and it does not matter if this happens through the paper dollar or the digital dollar.

There are tons of answer options.
- behind these tokens is the dollar, which means stability and lack of volatility. Yes, I agree - there are risks that the owner can manipulate the stock (collateral), but there are many articles of the criminal code on this .
- there is nothing behind a common cryptocurrency. The collateral of any other cryptocurrency is nothing, but they attract money for their projects. And such actions (working with securities or equivalent to them) are the responsibility of the SEC
- Many stablecoins have mechanisms of centralized monetary systems, such as freezing your account (read - your wallet), cryptocurrencies do not. Therefore, stablecoins are "closer" to the legislation

Well this has nothing to do with cbdc's, as that's only new platform for digitalized usd (which people have been using since bank transactions), but one huge difference to altcoins, that comes in mind, is that you can't argue that usdt exists for making profit, which you can argue about altcoins and their marketing related to icos/idos/ieos or whatever. Obviously there are services that pay profit for holding usdt, but that's has nothing to do with Tether the company.

And one of the reasons SEC attacks to altcoins you can find from the Howey test, and that is under "3. With the expectation of profit"

What stablecoins you are referring with dude to do this topic anyway? As far as I know, I'm not just sure if the SEC really is after Stablecoins, or because they are planing something we don't know to enter that they want to benefit more or their government.

Because we know that the SEC has recently been hurting cryptocurrencies and others have even closed it as harassment and abuse of their power. So I don't think it's as good as you think dude. It is in my opinion that there is nothing else.

Not true, even though we often think of stable coins as always 1:1 to USD, there have been many cases where USDT or BUSD also fell or rose creating a disparity with USD. It's just that their volatility is so small and we don't care about them, but they obviously also have volatility risks.

I think the SEC has their plan and will attack the market step by step, most likely exchanges and altcoins being their first target. If they succeed, the rest of the market will be their next target. And I believe even bitcoin will be their goal and their ultimate goal is to regulate and control the whole market.

Actually SEC have sued many stablecoins, you need to be more active reading in Altcoins discussion and Legal sections where it were this topic discussed before.

But even though they got sued, they're centralized, no privacy, and stable price, this make them easier to convince SEC. It's different if we talk about privacy coins where SEC and centralized exchanges are working together to fight and delist them from the market.

If what you mean by 'free from SEC' was that stable coin is never considered as a security then it is because stable coin is backed by USD it can't be considered as a security because the price is always 1:1 to USD. Therefore it can't be used as an investment by US citizen and can't give them any profit. Security is something that you can speculate and look for profit.

which stable coins you mean? If you didn't know, all the regulatory tightening from the SEC was caused by FTX platform and the loss of thousands of investors in the stablecoin LUNA, which prompted many citizens in the United States to put pressure on lawmakers to regulate cryptocurrency exchnages, and therefore you find all these investigations into the platforms and force them to leave or pay penalties Financial and commitment to guarantee the funds of depositors.


Look at the headlines of the articles that forced the SEC to act


THE SUN TERRA ATTACK I’m a Terra Luna investor – I’ve lost my entire £400,000 life savings after cryptocurrency crashed 98% overnight
independent I lost my life savings’: Terra Luna cryptocurrency collapses 98% overnight
Euronews Terra Luna crash: 'I alone am responsible,' says CEO Do Kwon in first interview since collapse

To the best of my knowledge, stable coins  are not exempt from oversight of Security and Exchange Commission(SEC) of USA. However, due to their direct pegging to fiat currencies like US dollar or Euro, they are less likely to be categorized as securities. It is important to highlight that regulatory approaches can indeed differ between jurisdictions.

SEC might not be going after the stablecoins now, but that doesn't mean they won't ever. I am sure SEC will go after the stablecoins when they are done with decentralised coins. The current ignorance of SEC should not be considered for future planning.

Also stablecoins are usually launched by a centralized business. So it is always easier to catch and control them. The real challenge for SEC is to get hold of decentralised coins. Once they will get fed up, they will run after easy catches.

SEC is an acronym for the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission It is an independent federal agency and from its name we will find that its focus is on Securities and Exchange. Stablecoins are usually seen as gateways that provide crypto exchanges with services that are no different from those provided by financial institutions in traditional markets in terms of liquidity and the ability to fix prices, but they need to open bank accounts or invest in the proceeds of US Treasury bonds to provide this liquidity and therefore these stable currencies need entities Provides financial services subject to regulation in one of the US states.

BUSD coin was operating under the entity Paxos private regulation in the New York Department of Financial Services (NYDFS) so the cooperation between the SEC and NYDFS leads to regulatory restrictions on the BUSD stablecoin.


https://www.pymnts.com/cryptocurrency/2023/sec-and-nydfs-heat-puts-binance-branded-paxos-stablecoin-on-ice/

Stable coins should be regulated because there should be a guarantee that what happens in Luna will not happen in another coin. I don't think there is any institution trying to end crypto. If there was such an institution, they would attack stable coins at first. Stable coins should be an element of trust in the crypto market. When people wake up one day, they should not see their stablecoins, which are equal to 1 dollar, at a lower value. Therefore, the regulation of stable coins and the elimination of risks are of great importance for the crypto market.

Why the hell has the SEC been so harsh on other crypto assets while being so "kind" with stablecoins? Which game are they playing?

There's more to it, I've gone down this rabbit hole. Those in charge are manipulating the entire crypto world. It is about control, not simply the currency. These stablecoins are centralized, which undoubtedly gives the major players and governments some backdoor control and ensures their supremacy

And is the White House attempting to exclude stablecoins from debates? What the heck are they cooking up behind the scenes, really? They may be using this time to prepare their CBDC before destroying anything that stands in their way

Stablecoins aren't free from the regulator, but it's a slightly different case than the common security token with all the ICO and stuff. I'd say the severity of harming the common consumer is way higher in these security tokens since the price can go to the moon and rekt down to oblivion. In "real" stablecoins, it didn't happen, well TUSD is an exception since it's algorithmically determined. It's just a matter of priority IMO, so SEC will come after them as well "soon"...

https://www.forbes.com/sites/joshuagarcia/2023/06/06/the-sec-is-coming-for-stablecoin-issuers-like-binance/?sh=4ab6d7044a88

These are many questions and the summary is that the US government currently has no issue with stablecoins because their values are pegged to the USD and other verifiable commodities and assets and have those assets practically backing them.

Meaning that they can truly prove their value/worth and make backed settlements to investors/holders, unlike other cryptocurrencies. This arrangement is happening in fiats as well but they tagged theirs in $(USD) which is why people do not suspect it that way. Just like PayPal, Skrill, Perfectmoney and others, the number you see on the screen is not the real money but has the power to settle deals on their platform like the real money while the real money is in the bank or stored as other assets. That arrangement is the same with the stablecoins but its own is just in the blockchain mechanism.

In addition, most stablecoins are centralized, and the USDT which is leading them by a wide margin is also centralised. Although some face scrutiny and lawsuits by regulators, it's minimal as I don't see a reason why the government will clamp down heavily on such an arrangement.

The SEC is just a government tool that are controlled by Banks, just look how the SEC were clueless prior to the 2008 global economic crisis to detect it and to prevent it. The powers from the top even diminished a whole section to one person to make sure that the investigations into the complex derivatives were almost impossible.   

The whole Banking system are corrupt.... and they will kill all competition, so that they can profit. They rigged the rating agencies, so that they could get AAA ratings ....where most of those investment options were total shit...... so you know what they will do with other stable coins. 

They might be free and clear under SEC but other governments are cracking down. Here in Canada there is word that USDC might be the only approved stablecoin you can hold after that Luna stablecoin caused people to lose their entire balance pretty much.

Tether is also under their radar because of the lack of audits and all the shady stuff that they did in the past. So they might be safe from SEC but eventually they will be required to be regulated.

Well, I think it's because they are in full compliance with the SEC and the government, if there is any reason for the SEC or government to drag any of them public, there wouldn't be any hesitation. Some of those stable coins are pegged to some physical asset or backed by some locked-up funds in fiat currency.

Since they were founded, they have had dealings with government authorities in the past due to several liquidity scandals, transparency, or also internal issues with issuing companies such as TerraUST. We won't know exactly what those institutions are playing, if they are serious about killing crypto, they will stop at nothing.

One thing to watch out for

SEC attacked, sued Binance USD (BUSD) that is a stable coin. Stable coin projets are like altcoin projects and they have to obey more rules on Proof of Reserves so they are more regulated than non-stable coin projects.

They are surely very centralized altcoins which make them more vulnerable to any legal problems for their projects, operations and even freeze of stable coin stored in any address which is required by governmemt.

Most stable coins can be frozen, even in your own wallets
Stable coins and blacklists
USDT - Banned addresses
SEC sued Binance USD

The SEC Chairman Gensler  once said that stablecoins are risky and can harm the US economy, he even referred to them as poker chips at the casino. I don't think that stablecoins are free from the SEC's attacks because they are currently under scrutiny. The recent legal action against Binance also relates to its stablecoins. Binance's stablecoin BUSD and other stablecoins are at risk if they are classified as securities. Immediately stablecoins are classified as securities they will be highly scrutinized and regulated by the SEC. But SEC seems confused because they failed to include Coinbase stablecoin USDC as a security in the suit against the crypto firm. But an unfavorable ruling against BUSD might affect stablecoins like BUSD, USDT, and others if they become securities making them fall under the regulatory jurisdiction of the SEC.


Firms that issue stablecoins claim that each coin is backed by dollars. This claim cannot be fully proven to be true because their accounts are not audited by any authority and for now, their operations are not regulated. That's why they need to be regulated to ensure that people are not been scammed.

How about looking at it this way:
The USDT is backed up by the United States dollar, and it happens to not have a CEO that's entirely controlling it; although it's completely centralized, there are still limits to which it can be controlled.
The USDT doesn't undergo some form of sale, either crowd funding, an IEO, an ICO, Private sales, or any other form that can be used to raise funds and acquire the USDT as a project token.
The USDT price and value are not being controlled and manipulated by any central body, which might in turn benefit hugely when the price goes up or down.

The SEC is not after stablecoins, according to what they call them, but the said stablecoins are really not stable all the time as they always drop in value, sometimes up to a cent.

Have anyone wonder why stable coins are safe all this while from Gensler and SEC, even the government? Why hasn't there any hunt on those centralized stablecoins? Is there something we don't know? Are stable coins somehow settled with the government and SEC behind the curtain?

Because if stable coins was target it will be a enormous hit to the whole crypto market, why haven't such thing happened yet? I also read where the former Binance.US said that the White House is trying to keep stable coins "out of discussions" like they know something.

Is this all about saving their USD? Or they are waiting to create CBDC successfully first before they go after stable coins?