Bitcoin Forum

Saylor thinks ETH post-merge on Proof-of-Stake is a security.

I think Saylor's a lil jelly tbh.

Thoughts?

His a pro Bitcoin supporter and dont look on other altcoins even the mighty eth so I think his just giving his opinion on it. But seriously everyone should believe him? Eth as security? Well leave that to your own understanding cause we know this could be a huge and long debatable topic.

Relevance information can be seen on: cointelegraph: BTC bull Michael Saylor: Ethereum is 'obviously' a security (https://cointelegraph.com/news/btc-bull-michael-saylor-ethereum-is-obviously-a-security).

Or straight from the source: https://youtu.be/JGvdMWvyRAA?t=1697.

He opined that ETH was security all along not after the post-merge.


Surely his main point besides a few things mentioned above is the fact that there are an issuer, ICO, and premine which make it could be categorized as a security. One thing worth noting is he talking in the context of a bill that considers ETH as a commodity.

Less security than proof of work but the main reason for switching is to increase the Transaction per second process speed nothing else because ETH is facing huge hike in the transaction gas fee which almost pushed the upcoming projects to move towards Binance Smart Chain lately this year as well.

I'm not sure about Proof-of-Stake being more secure, just as it would be more decentralized. Delegated PoS will clearly be to the detriment of those characteristics. Most likely after the merger ETH will face a number of problems related just to centralization and vulnerabilities, there are already quite a few analytical parses on this issue. I wonder, if you suggest to Saylor to transfer his favorite bitcoin to PoS, will he also say that it will be safe?  ::)

Sounds like Saylor doesn't know how security is defined nor anyone should think he is an expert of any of this. But that's what you get for interviewing a bitcoin maximalist. Obviously they are going to trash anything that's not BTC

Most likely yes (after he did the swap). Its just business too for Saylor, an investment that is been waiting to pop up. Of course he is after the gains, so if this to happen he will defend it like how he did on btc. Shill on his twitter and make a myday post about it. But I doubt he is gonna do that but stick to btc as its more safer net for him.

Can you upgrade gold to version 2.0 ?
 No because it is a commodity and did not get issued by someone with a ico.

So how should security be defined in relation to the statement that ETH is a commodity? Saylor has already given his opinion about it and enumerated the reasons why he thinks it's a security. You should refute his arguments instead of dismissing it as anti-altcoin sentiment since he's a bitcoin maxi.

I think it is not such a big deal. I mean Saylor is a great investor and whatever he says, fine in my book. Doesn't mean that I will follow whatever he says, of course I still hold my ETH and I hope to god one day I would have 32 ETH so I could stake it eventually when that happens. But that doesn't mean that I will go out against Saylor and say anything mean about him neither. This is the dude that helped the crypto world break into the wall street world.

If he could help us get that much bigger, with billions, then I would support him no matter what. That is of course resulting with me not believing or agreeing on stuff he says, and still do not say he is wrong, just moving on without disagreeing.

The Howey Test
The present legal standard in the US for determining whether something is a security is summarized in the Howey Test.
According to the Howey Test, if the thing meets all the following criteria, it is a security.

• It is an investment of money
• In a common enterprise
• With an expectation of profits
• Predominantly from the efforts of others

Most cryptos offered to the public meet all of them easily.




      The only digital asset that is not a security is one that satisfies both the following two conditions:
(1) is based on genuine Proof-of-Work (POW); and
(2) has a locked base protocol according to the law.

Its not just Saylor who said ETH to be a security its not that he is finding flaws to ETH but does it mean that ETH will be highly regulated by the SEC?

If this is going to be where ETH is going, Vitalik must be making a big mistake in trying to merge and make it POS. POS is also very vulnerable to manipulation when the biggest institutions are going to be in the crypto markets.

Saylor is just using an old argument among many many old arguments of Proof of Stake.

I am not a fan,,, I like PoW and the arguments of energy are mostly invalid,,, because they always ignored the benefits and the cost of other existing systems. But this does not automatically make me a fan of Saylor.

The context that Saylor talked about is Senator Lummis's bill that deems Ethereum and Bitcoin as a commodity, whereas it will fall onto Commodities Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) regulation. Saylor's opinion which you can see on the Youtube link I posted on my first post of this thread, argues that Ethereum is more suitable to be deemed as security, whereas according to the bill it will be regulated by SEC.

I think he is just telling facts. What is wrong with it?
I am not a fan and not a Bitcoin maximalist as I also have Ethereum in my stocks and some other coins that I think have great features even if they are POS.
If ever this statement will help another being to understand what security and other stuff about investment are then so be it.
It's actually the first time I heard about those and I learned a lot already. I am not deep about investment fundaments, etc.. but it made me read some things that I have not bumped into.

I don't know how the idea comes to mind, but that's just ridiculous just because Ethereum moving to PoS, wont make ETH become security. ETH still has utility and people are still using ETH on the Ethereum smart contract, thus make it commodity. It's not just a piece of paper that says you own something.

The law states what is and what is not a security, Dont matter what someone thinks.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5405758.msg60563856#msg60563856

I think when Ethereum moves to PoS and all these ethereum 1.0 clones rise up that actually have value, we're going to see a lot of analysis arguing that non-security tokens are exempt from being treated as security.

Basically Saylor has invested a ton into bitcoin, hence why he would like to see bitcoin being the best ever and nothing else getting closer. Looking at the previous bull run, we could say that there was a good case to be made about ETH getting way too close during the bull run.

This means if we have ETH 2.0 and proof of stake there, and if we have a bull run at the same time, there could be a ton of money going into ETH, not saying it will be at the top and take bitcoins place, but it would go up a lot. This means that some money that could have gone to bitcoin and make Saylor richer, would end up in ETH and he doesn't want that to happen right now.

Forget what Saylor things, listen what SEC chair has to say
https://youtu.be/Gy2IF_og2Nw

Maybe we don't need a bull run to see ETH price increase thanks to ETH 2.0 PoS. Just look how the crypto market is in such a boring state of crypto winter. Investors are desperate for anything to hype up and at least, have really strong momentum behind it. ETH 2.0 PoS meets all the criteria so I think it can be a bull on its own. Have you seen how the old LUNA takes all the spotlight? Even in such a sorry state, old LUNA pulls like almost the same amount of trading volume as BTC. FUD news like bad security for ETH post-merge won't be enough to get investors off the hype.

I think Ethereum is safe because big bankers own most of the coins. As long as they need this project, it is safe. Even the SEC will not be able to do anything with their claims. But most other projects are under threat, because the regulator can recognize them as shares and impose a fine on them.

When the price of ETH goes up, and there is nothing stopping ETH from being secure, Saylor will eat is words. However, we do not have that right now, proof of stake is not here yet, and that is why everyone can say whatever they want and nothing will happen. What we need right now is having something more important done. And that will only happen when the price of ethereum changes.

Let’s wait for the ETH 2.0 situation to happen and after that is done, we are going to be able to say something about it. Just wait, do not get involved with anyone, do not argue with anyone, hold to your guns and wait for it to happen. I also accumulate more ETH during this process as well.

And so it begins, the first tokens (AMP, RLY, DDX, XYO, RGT, LCX, POWR, DFX, and KROM) are classed as securities.
https://coingeek.com/sec-labels-9-tokens-as-securities-in-coinbase-insider-trading-scandal/