The Creation of CRC (Crypto Rating Council) - Its influence on cryptocurrencies.

[lobat999]

Recently Coinbase, together with other leading companies in the crypto industry just announced its creation of CRC - Crypto rating Council with the goal to

assist market participants that trade or support crypto assets to comply with U.S. federal securities laws.

.

The blog also stated that CRC is doing a score based rating -

The Council’s analytical framework results in a score between 1 and 5.
A score of 1 means the Council’s independent analysis suggests the asset has few or no characteristics consistent with a traditional regulated security.
A score of 5 means the Council’s analysis suggests that an asset has many characteristics strongly consistent with treatment as a security.

Interestingly, Bitcoin was rated with  with a score of 1.0, meaning it is less likely to be a security! In light with this developments, I was wondering if the U.S. regulating bodies would soften its stance against Bitcoin or would altogether embrace it? Also, what would be the effect of this ratings on some cryptos which have been characterized as the same as security? And how would crypto holders react based on the ratings of cryptos he/she is holding?


Sources: https://blog.coinbase.com/introducing-the-crypto-rating-council-d6ee33a8f34d

             https://www.cryptoratingcouncil.com/asset-ratings

[1715392788]

1715392788

[1715392788]

1715392788

[avikz]

The Council’s analytical framework results in a score between 1 and 5.
A score of 1 means the Council’s independent analysis suggests the asset has few or no characteristics consistent with a traditional regulated security.
A score of 5 means the Council’s analysis suggests that an asset has many characteristics strongly consistent with treatment as a security.

Lol! What a royal joke!!

Bitcoin is not correlated with any traditional security as defined by the law. The matter of fact is that majority of the cryptos are not correlated! So majority of them would receive a rating of 1.

Only tokens representing as an equirty of a company can be rated more than 1. So this rating literally makes no sense to majority of crypto enthusiasts.

[Carlton Banks]

Bitcoin is not correlated with any traditional security as defined by the law. The matter of fact is that majority of the cryptos are not correlated! So majority of them would receive a rating of 1.

Only tokens representing as an equirty of a company can be rated more than 1. So this rating literally makes no sense to majority of crypto enthusiasts.

right, the idea is just am institutionalized way of saying "Bitcoin isn't backed by an asset" or "Bitcoin cannot be guaranteeably redeemed for an asset"


except BITCOIN IS THE UNDERLYING ASSET you donkeys



Fortunately, Coinbase have such an appalling, repellent reputation that almost no-one worth a damn will take this seriously

[figmentofmyass]

The Council’s analytical framework results in a score between 1 and 5.
A score of 1 means the Council’s independent analysis suggests the asset has few or no characteristics consistent with a traditional regulated security.
A score of 5 means the Council’s analysis suggests that an asset has many characteristics strongly consistent with treatment as a security.

Lol! What a royal joke!!

Bitcoin is not correlated with any traditional security as defined by the law. The matter of fact is that majority of the cryptos are not correlated! So majority of them would receive a rating of 1.

that's a good thing. if a coin has a rating of 1 it means exchanges are more likely to list it. that's the whole point of this "council"---to keep exchanges from running afoul of the SEC and perhaps establish some legal cover in case they do.

Only tokens representing as an equirty of a company can be rated more than 1. So this rating literally makes no sense to majority of crypto enthusiasts.

the howey test is more nuanced than that. most ICO tokens don't grant holders equity but the SEC still may see them as securities. the SEC commissioner said a while back "every ICO I've seen is a security".

[Carlton Banks]

that's a good thing. if a coin has a rating of 1 it means exchanges are more likely to list it.

And in which case, Bitcoin may not even be able to achieve a 1.


So, I agree, it is a good thing: Bitcoin could become de-listed on US exchanges if this system is heavily enforced, and Bitcoin could be used as the currency to trade ICO's (which can essentially function no differently to stock equity) in a free market instead.

It appears the world is heading in that direction; laissez-faire capitalism exists now only where government cartels cannot touch it: cryptographic securities.

In Turing we trust

[lobat999]

that's a good thing. if a coin has a rating of 1 it means exchanges are more likely to list it. that's the whole point of this "council"---to keep exchanges from running afoul of the SEC and perhaps establish some legal cover in case they do.

So to speak they will be abiding with U.S. regulating bodies such as S.E.C. to prevent any legal repercussions that may arise to them and their own customers in the future.

And in which case, Bitcoin may not even be able to achieve a 1.

Actually they've already rated Bitcoin as having a rating of 1. This is a relief to the community! - https://www.cryptoratingcouncil.com/asset-ratings

[Mandoy]

A crypto rating council would not be bad if we know who are the people behind it, are they experts and masters on the field of cryptocurrency and lastly are they hones (does not accept bribe) and honest. If the following criteria is present within the crypto rating council then it would be better if they focus on the ICO and IEO. If they will focus in filtering the new coins and tokens before it will be allowed to enter into an exchange then there will be less people who will be  a victim of scam ICO's and IEO's.

[CryptoBry]

Interestingly, Bitcoin was rated with a score of 1.0, meaning it is less likely to be a security! In light with this developments, I was wondering if the U.S. regulating bodies would soften its stance against Bitcoin or would altogether embrace it? Also, what would be the effect of this ratings on some cryptos which have been characterized as the same as security? And how would crypto holders react based on the ratings of cryptos he/she is holding?

        

There is no need for the use of this so-called Crypto Rating Council for regulators to soften their stance against Bitcoin because this is already settled a long time ago that Bitcoin has not been and will never be a security.

SEC Chairman Jay Clayton has clarified that bitcoin is not a security. “Cryptocurrencies are replacements for sovereign currencies…[they] replace the yen, the dollar, the euro with bitcoin. That type of currency is not a security...”

However, this CRC can be helping a lot those altcoins which the SEC has eyed for possible violations of issuing securities without undergoing the usual legal framework much more so if they accepted investments from American citizens within and without the USA.

Among the list of assets listed in the site, it is Maker and Polymath which both garnered the highest score of 4.5. Polymath did not hold an ICO or something because they distributed their coins by airdrops so maybe it would not have any problem with SEC. After Polymath and Maker, XRP got 4 points.

[Rinimitra1926]

The recent announcement of the formation of the Crypto Rating Council (CRC) comes with mixed emotions and confusion. Branded as a joint commitment "to the responsible growth and maturity of cryptocurrency markets and related financial infrastructure and trading services", as set out on its website, CRC simplifies U.S. federal securities laws for the benefit of retail investors Wali claims to provide the system.