[2019-10-10] CFTC says Bitcoin AND ETH are Commodity

[hv_]

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/cftc-says-cryptocurrency-ether-is-a-commodity-and-is-open-to-ether-derivatives-133455545.html

On Bitcoin  - cannot agree more



ETH was ICO - doesn't work as promised and goes PoS - Vitalik controlled, is even more what a security defines ( Shares = right to min and earn dividends )


 

[mod note: fixed date]

[CryptoBry]

So is this good news or bad news for Eth to be categorized as a commodity and not as a security? I think it is the former. Now, just like Bitcoin, there is no more question if these digital assets should be taken as securities which can be a big problem especially in the USA. Now, the definition has been outed by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission Chairman Heath Tarbert. And in addition, the Chairman predicted that just like Bitcoin Ether futures trading on U.S. markets can also be a reality in the near future. I am hoping this can help push the value of Eth further in the market.

I understand that you don't agree with this ruling defining and categorizing Ether as a commodity and not security but we have to respect the Commission for this decision and I am sure that a decision otherwise can make many Eth holders and supporters sad, right? So we will just be happy for Vitalik and his cohorts.

[BitHodler]

ETH was ICO - doesn't work as promised and goes PoS - Vitalik controlled, is even more what a security defines ( Shares = right to min and earn dividends )

It was an ICO, but it's current status is no longer that---what it is known as today is a POW network---therefore is put in the same category as Bitcoin. People may not agree with that but things are as they are.

As for Ethereum being Vitalik controlled, maybe, but his influence on what happens is declining as time goes by. Important is that the CFTC doesn't look at Ethereum like that because they continue to call it a decentralized crypto.

Regarding POS, it's not certain yet that it will happen. The CFTC just focuses on how Ethereum runs today, not how it might run in 2020 and after. I don't consider Ethereum a security either. Bitcoin bulls on the other hand do.

[marky89]

So is this good news or bad news for Eth to be categorized as a commodity and not as a security?

It's obviously good news. The rules applying to securities are much stiffer, which is why several CFTC-regulated markets have launched since 2017 (LedgerX, CME, CBOE, Bakkt) but the SEC has rubber stamped nothing.

ETH was ICO - doesn't work as promised and goes PoS - Vitalik controlled, is even more what a security defines ( Shares = right to min and earn dividends )

It doesn't seem clear cut that an ICO must be a security offering. (Most of them obviously are but that's neither here nor there)

As for POS, it's a (flawed) form of decentralized consensus administered at the protocol level. Why would that make it a security?

[1Referee]

As for Ethereum being Vitalik controlled, maybe, but his influence on what happens is declining as time goes by.

His influence isn't declining at all. It has been his toy from the moment it launched years ago. Most of the proposals or simple changes don't make it to the actual main implementation(s) without his consent. It's like everyone is after his approval and agree with any of his decisions afterwards (positive or negative).

I have always found him to be a burden to Ether's growth. The whole ecosystem would be way better off without him throwing bones at anyone not following his path. He's a very smart kid, but so focused on his personal development roadmap, that it is working against the toy he once envisioned to become a decentralized world computer.

[bbc.reporter]

@1Referee. What growth? Ethereum cannot scale. They already admitted to this despite marketing the platform as a world computer back when they were beginning development.


Also, Vitalik is Ethereum. Ethereum will be whatever platform Vitalik says is Ethereum and the community would follow it.

[magneto]

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/cftc-says-cryptocurrency-ether-is-a-commodity-and-is-open-to-ether-derivatives-133455545.html

On Bitcoin  - cannot agree more



ETH was ICO - doesn't work as promised and goes PoS - Vitalik controlled, is even more what a security defines ( Shares = right to min and earn dividends )


 

I agree with the ETH evaluation, because of the fact that it can be manipulated by a single party essentially due to the sheer amount of influence this person has over the community. Also, it was ICO'd, which probably makes it more suitably categorised as a utility token, or security.

I think that classifications themselves don't really matter that much on paper. It's not a matter of principles, but what these classifications bring in terms of tax and regulations.

I'm no expert in this field, and I'd be interested to know how would something being classified as a commodity be different from a regulatory viewpoint compared to a currency?

[1Referee]

@1Referee. What growth? Ethereum cannot scale. They already admitted to this despite marketing the platform as a world computer back when they were beginning development.

There have been various scaling proposals made, but the most dominant one is layer two scaling, which is something you have not been a fan of based on your previous posts.

I'm pretty sure that it will be able to scale through layer two eventually, just like how Bitcoin is already scaling onwards through layer two. It's obviously not as safe as using the main chain, but you can't keep cluttering the main chain with data endlessly. Ethereum's full blockchain size is already in the 1.3TB range. That's enough incentive to not stress the main network further.

[bbc.reporter]

@1Referee. That is not the argument. The argument is Vitalik's ICO prospectus was to build scalable dapps on Ethereum. However, they admit that they knew Ethereum was never going to be scalable in a developer conference. What was that? An admission of failure?

Also, Ethereum will not create a layer 2. It will reboot to a scalable Ethereum 2.0. What is that again?

[hv_]

@1Referee. That is not the argument. The argument is Vitalik's ICO prospectus was to build scalable dapps on Ethereum. However, they admit that they knew Ethereum was never going to be scalable in a developer conference. What was that? An admission of failure?

Also, Ethereum will not create a layer 2. It will reboot to a scalable Ethereum 2.0. What is that again?

2.0 will be no PoW.

All the eth whales will be  oligarchs for ever (PoW is open for monopol break up cause higher op risks) then and their eth stake will give them rights to create the blocks and return dividends . Eth is security even more such

Proof of Shit

[timerland]

ETH was ICO - doesn't work as promised and goes PoS - Vitalik controlled, is even more what a security defines ( Shares = right to min and earn dividends )

It was an ICO, but it's current status is no longer that---what it is known as today is a POW network---therefore is put in the same category as Bitcoin. People may not agree with that but things are as they are.

As for Ethereum being Vitalik controlled, maybe, but his influence on what happens is declining as time goes by. Important is that the CFTC doesn't look at Ethereum like that because they continue to call it a decentralized crypto.

Regarding POS, it's not certain yet that it will happen. The CFTC just focuses on how Ethereum runs today, not how it might run in 2020 and after. I don't consider Ethereum a security either. Bitcoin bulls on the other hand do.

Agreed, I think they actually had a thread on this very forum for their ICO, and it was the first successful ICO that was ever run, here's the link I found.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=428589.0

That's a piece of history there.

I don't really like CFTC's sorting of the coins, I think bitcoin needs to be in its own section, but what you are saying does make sense.

[Theb]

I do think that we need to agree that they are only putting classifications for cryptos because they want to at least give them a class or a jurisdiction to fall through in their country and us arguing Bitcoin or Ethereum whether or not they are a commodity is totally irrelevant. On other countries Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies are recognized as a legal tender which they often use to rule out the used of it locally in their country or to at least subject it to income taxes as well. On countries such as US they classify it as a commodity in order for it to be subject to property tax as well. All this classifications are either used for taxing purposes or worst used it for banning cryptocurrencies but that is all there is, its just the governments finding ways to get more money from us or just removed it from our country.

[bbc.reporter]

ETH was ICO - doesn't work as promised and goes PoS - Vitalik controlled, is even more what a security defines ( Shares = right to min and earn dividends )

It was an ICO, but it's current status is no longer that---what it is known as today is a POW network---therefore is put in the same category as Bitcoin. People may not agree with that but things are as they are.

As for Ethereum being Vitalik controlled, maybe, but his influence on what happens is declining as time goes by. Important is that the CFTC doesn't look at Ethereum like that because they continue to call it a decentralized crypto.

Regarding POS, it's not certain yet that it will happen. The CFTC just focuses on how Ethereum runs today, not how it might run in 2020 and after. I don't consider Ethereum a security either. Bitcoin bulls on the other hand do.

Agreed, I think they actually had a thread on this very forum for their ICO, and it was the first successful ICO that was ever run, here's the link I found.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=428589.0

That's a piece of history there.

I don't really like CFTC's sorting of the coins, I think bitcoin needs to be in its own section, but what you are saying does make sense.

How many of the ICO coins did they issue to investors and to themselves and how much of the total are mined Ethereum coins? What is the ratio?

[error08]

I don't really like CFTC's sorting of the coins, I think bitcoin needs to be in its own section, but what you are saying does make sense.

It makes sense, all the cryptocurrencies in the market are commodities just like bitcoin, there is a major difference between crypto and securities like bond stock, people buying stock in a corporation expects to gain profit from the company's success. Securities providing companies and government with capital and investors with the potential for returns.
When a coin was an ICO, yes it can be categorized as security, but over time it will change become a commodity.
Tarbert acknowledges “ambiguity in the market” on the status of many coins, but says that ultimately “similar digital assets should be treated similarly.” If the underlying asset, the original digital asset, hasn’t been determined to be a security and is, therefore, a commodity.

[hermawan9416]

To some extent this is true, money is also a commodity

[figmentofmyass]

Agreed, I think they actually had a thread on this very forum for their ICO, and it was the first successful ICO that was ever run, here's the link I found.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=428589.0

That's a piece of history there.

i'm not sure what constitutes the first "successful" ICO but NXT ran one in september 2013. it was fairly groundbreaking at the time and probably inspired the ethereum developers to launch theirs. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=303898.0

I don't really like CFTC's sorting of the coins, I think bitcoin needs to be in its own section, but what you are saying does make sense.

the commodity designation is a good thing---it implies fungibility.

[Kakmakr]

Yea, the debate was always on about Ethereum being a security and not a commodity and now it is clear that Ethereum will be defined as a commodity. If Ethereum was classed as a security, it would have been scrutinized and everyone owning or trading it without a license would have committed security fraud.

I think they made the correct decision to classify it as a commodity, even though Ethereum were more focused on smart contracts and ICO's. The multiple use cases for Crypto currencies are making things more and more difficult for the regulators to define it. 

[rodel caling]

ETH was ICO - doesn't work as promised and goes PoS - Vitalik controlled, is even more what a security defines ( Shares = right to min and earn dividends )

It was an ICO, but it's current status is no longer that---what it is known as today is a POW network---therefore is put in the same category as Bitcoin. People may not agree with that but things are as they are.

As for Ethereum being Vitalik controlled, maybe, but his influence on what happens is declining as time goes by. Important is that the CFTC doesn't look at Ethereum like that because they continue to call it a decentralized crypto.

Regarding POS, it's not certain yet that it will happen. The CFTC just focuses on how Ethereum runs today, not how it might run in 2020 and after. I don't consider Ethereum a security either. Bitcoin bulls on the other hand do.

Yeah I agree with sir ethereum is not an ordinary coin in the crypto currency space, actually there a lot of country and merchants accepting ethereum as mode of payment same function of the king of crypto(bitcoin) so it's obvious ethereum not a commodity is also a new form of money.

[bbc.reporter]

Agreed, I think they actually had a thread on this very forum for their ICO, and it was the first successful ICO that was ever run, here's the link I found.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=428589.0

That's a piece of history there.

i'm not sure what constitutes the first "successful" ICO but NXT ran one in september 2013. it was fairly groundbreaking at the time and probably inspired the ethereum developers to launch theirs. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=303898.0

I don't really like CFTC's sorting of the coins, I think bitcoin needs to be in its own section, but what you are saying does make sense.

the commodity designation is a good thing---it implies fungibility.

How does the commodity designation imply fungibility? A coin is only fungible if the transactions cannot be connected or traced together which can only be a product of anonymous and private transactions.

[figmentofmyass]

the commodity designation is a good thing---it implies fungibility.

How does the commodity designation imply fungibility?

it's implied by the definition. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodity

In economics, a commodity is an economic good or service that has full or substantial fungibility: that is, the market treats instances of the good as equivalent or nearly so with no regard to who produced them.[1][2]

that's what allows commodity futures to trade efficiently. in physical trading, commodities would be visually inspected, as in farmer's markets and such. since that can't be done in derivatives markets, there exist strict agreed upon standards---grades and classifications, organic vs GMO, etc---otherwise the contracts wouldn't be fungible. so when a contract for WTI matures, any barrel of WTI is as good as the next, but you can't try to pass off barrels of brent as WTI.

similarly, a deliverable bitcoin contract promises delivery of bitcoins, and any one BTC is as good as the next. but you can't try to pass off BSV as BTC.

A coin is only fungible if the transactions cannot be connected or traced together which can only be a product of anonymous and private transactions.

fungibility means units are interchangeable, not that they are unlinked/anonymous.