IMPORTANT Testimony Today - SEC and CFTC

[ico41]

I think that one of the most important events that could affect the entire crypto space took place today, where the chairmen of two powerful regulating agencies in the U.S. testified before Congress.  

I'll let you you make your own conclusions from this, but there was certainly some interesting highlights.  

It's worth listening to.  

Archived Video]https://www.banking.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2018/2/virtual-currencies-the-oversight-role-of-the-u-s-securities-and-exchange-commission-and-the-u-s-commodity-futures-trading-commission]Archived Video.

If you would like to hear a matter-of-fact, fairly clear definition of a security from the perspective of the SEC, forward to 1:03:36.  That's the question. The definition comes at 1:04:23. He completes it in about 40 seconds. If you listen to those 40 seconds a couple of times you will see that he hits the three prongs of the Howey Test.  In his view, as he has said earlier in the testimony that "all ICO's are securities".  This is interesting from an ICO perspective.

However, this testimony is not just about ICO's.  It could easily affect all types of crypto, and especially Bitcoin - because as you will see, Congress is most likely not going to be able to distinguish between Bitcoin, Altcoins, etc.

[Last of the V8s]

Little lizards flailing about self-importantly grilling their flunkies.

None of this has any impact on Bitcoin.

[ico41]

Probably not on the bitcoin network itself.  But it could have an effect on people.  The ability for people to use the technology, if impeded, would be a shame.  Yes, there are always going to be ways around it, but if it's heavily regulated where it touches fiat it will slow adoption to a crawl.

No effect on the bitcoin network to be sure ... but effect on the bitcoin universe -- yeah, probably.

[ismart1]

What I really enjoyed about the hearing was the fact that they come to a conclusion that what is needed is not to ban the cryptocurrencies but embrace in a way that can protect those who venture in this world and that we need some regulations to separate the wheat from the weed in the crypto field. Also, the remarkable statement was the senator who compared the crypto to the cell phone market years ago as he invested while other discriminated it, he got rich while other lost the opportunity. We are in the right market, yes we are.

[ico41]

What I really enjoyed about the hearing was the fact that they come to a conclusion that what is needed is not to ban the cryptocurrencies but embrace in a way that can protect those who venture in this world and that we need some regulations to separate the wheat from the weed in the crypto field. Also, the remarkable statement was the senator who compared the crypto to the cell phone market years ago as he invested while other discriminated it, he got rich while other lost the opportunity. We are in the right market, yes we are.

Yeah, that was definitely one of the high points of the meeting.  One thing I don't quite understand was the last exchange between Warren and Clayton where Warren asked "How many ICO's have registered with the SEC?"  and Clayton said "Zero."  He said it twice.  But what about Protocol Labs?  They filed Reg D and Reg S.  Does he not count these because they are "Exemptions"?  If that's the case, is he actually saying that ICO's can't even file exemptions to protect themselves?  I might need to listen to that again, and I'd like to get confirmation from a securities expert, but if he's saying that ICO's can't even file the Reg D and S exemptions, then this, I believe will seriously restrict the ICO market, and will cause pretty much every single ICO that is released to refuse U.S. Investors.

I know that a lot of people believe that ICO's are fundamentally scammy, but they don't necessarily have to be.  If they collect money and build useful applications instead of just buying lambos, then ICO's have the potential to truly advance the use of blockchain technology.  If ICO's can't even file exemptions, wouldn't this set the U.S. back in terms of keeping up with technology?

Anyway ... if anyone reading this happens to be a securities whiz please let us know your take on this.  Thanks in advance.