Bitcoin Forum

According to an recent announcement made by SEC chairman Mr. Jay Clayton, all tokens or digital assets that were used to raise funds for a venture or company with an expectation of profit, either given by the company formed or exchangeable on a secondary market, are classified as securities.

However, SEC is not making any change in the process of rolling an ICO in USA.

Also, bitcoin will not fall into this category because bitcoin does not not seek to fund a project in exchange for a return.

My conclusion: another typical double faced game by SEC which is not helpful at all.

Video link: https://youtu.be/8YtZJRUak8E

Article link: https://cryptocoin-hnews.cdn.ampproject.org/c/s/cryptocoin.news/videos/breaking-news-sec-chairman-declares-all-icos-as-securities-15119/amp/

apparently not all ICOs are securities, because he wouldn't comment on ETH in the same breath. he seems to be stressing the distinction between a "decentralized currency" and a "for-profit venture."


more of the same, really. i think the intention here is to gently scare ICO issuers into compliance.

It`s good to know that SEC knows the difference between bitcoin and ICO tokens.I would be worried,if they were considering tokens to be the same type of digital asset as bitcoin. ;D
Their opinion is,I would say,neutral,which is way better than spreading FUD and scaring people away.

stick with pow no problem...

He can't say anything about individual coins or tokens because of how much his words can impact their markets. It would have been rather weird if he actually said anything about Ethereum.

He was asked about some other (non crypto) stuff as well, and again refused to talk about individual assets or tools. If we just look at what he said about securities, then it's clear that Ethereum is a security.

Coinbase is one of the most regulated exchanges in the US, which means that they have the approval of various regulators in order to have Ethereum listed, and since recently even Ethereum Classic.

Is there a way to browse through their listings to see what they registered the various crypto and token assets as? That should clear things up a bit.

Are they just being vague in the definition of ICOs in general? Because if they mean on continuing with that definition it could easily be taken into court. But I am not against it as I know a lot of companies in the USA are planning on offering security tokens instead of going through the IPO process of their SEC, this companies also have their own existing stocks and they are still planning on funding their company by way of ICO. It is like having 2 stocks in two different markets.

I'm pretty sure they've already mentioned BTC and ETH as unlikely being a securities some time ago. Both, mentioning and not mentioning specific token can affect the market.

Bit newer articles than the one in the first post:

https://cointelegraph.com/news/cboe-president-sec-decision-that-ethereum-is-not-a-security-paves-way-for-eth-futures
https://cointelegraph.com/news/senior-us-regulator-says-ethereum-in-its-present-state-is-not-a-security

But this guy from SEC just said something to the contrary:

https://www.c[Suspicious link removed]m/2018/06/14/bitcoin-and-ethereum-are-not-securities-but-some-cryptocurrencies-may-be-sec-official-says.html

"...Regarding ICOs, Hinman also acknowledged that some digital assets could be structured more like a consumer item than a security, particularly if the asset is purchased for personal use and not intended as an investment. He seemed to imply that these types of offerings — an investment in a book club, or a golf club membership, for example — were likely not securities."

This does seem a bit strange, especially since their stand until now was that a token could have security-like characteristics and would then need to abide by security registration guidelines. A lot of people have in their past taken efforts to ensure that their tokens are not classified as ICOs and therefore do not come under the SEC's purview. Now this renders all those efforts meaningless.

I'm confused, because I just found a more recent statement from an SEC representative that not all ICOs are securities:

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/14/bitcoin-and-ethereum-are-not-securities-but-some-cryptocurrencies-may-be-sec-official-says.html

I imagine this must be frustrating for the few teams out there who are planning to launch a legitimate ICO lol. I mean, if you're going to regulate it anyway, you may as well regulate it in such a way that compliance is as easy and clear-cut as possible.

Statements or opinions should not always be taken as a final decision even if they come from the head of the SEC itself it doesn't make it in anyway binding, Of course the views of one political chair will be different from the legislative assembly which is more powerful as they can create laws with regards to regulation of ICOs. The previous statement is to vague as generalizing that all ICOs must be classified as a security token because of the fact that they are raising funds with their sale is not a justifiable reasoning, ICOs in the first place are like IPOs they are be offered in order to raise funds by way of the sale of their tokens.

So what would you follow then? There are no current legislations in the United States as far as ICOs, specifically, go. There are only legislation about securities themselves, and the SEC decides if something falls into that category. That means their statements and/or opinions are somewhat binding in this case because they themselves decide whether you need to follow the regulations or not.

But if you try following the link to that article it shows that the page does not exist.

US is killing ICO’s, If only we can we just remove US from crypto environment. Well that statement must be concluded immediately, because it only creates fear and compliant projects are affected by some of these statements. In general this industry is so immature that there are a lot of loopholes to be fix.

Bitcoin is just a propaganda coin

Wut?

What I'm most interested in about all this is once definitions are in place, what are they going to do about ones that have already passed? I get the feeling they're not massively inclined to pursue previous ICOs unless they're blatantly criminal, but then again there are so many of those they're going to have their hands full for years anyway.

That is very true that all tokens have some security features and that is also the reason why most ICOs would exclude the US as potential investors