SEC clarifies Bitcoin is not securities and regulations in 2021

[DustyRah]

SEC chairman Jay Clayton stated clearly on CNBC Squakbox that Bitcoin is not securities such as ICOs since it is not being used to raise capital. They have also said that they will come up with regulations to safeguard consumer funds into Bitcoin which they consider as a store of value in 2021.

I think this legitimizes Bitcoin and paves the way for more institutional investment. Oddly enough Bitcoin was made for poor people but now the rich are taking it over slowly. Then again whatever the rich invest in will succeed because they will ensure it succeeds with their abilities which they have vast amounts of.

There is a strong possibility that governments around the world may find ways to blacklist wallets or entire chains and institutions may start to honor those blacklists. For example, they may blacklist known wallets used for illegal purposes and now PayPal users won't be able to send or receive money to or from those wallets.

The fun part of about this bull run is that this is institutional money rolling in while it was retail money rolling in back in Dec 2017.

Going to be fun to watch how Bitcoin and crypto in general evolves but what is sure is that digital forms of payment are now more legit than ever.

Any thoughts?

[1715068291]

1715068291

[1715068291]

1715068291

[1715068291]

1715068291

[1715068291]

1715068291

[figmentofmyass]

SEC chairman Jay Clayton stated clearly on CNBC Squakbox that Bitcoin is not securities such as ICOs since it is not being used to raise capital. They have also said that they will come up with regulations to safeguard consumer funds into Bitcoin which they consider as a store of value in 2021.

i was excited at first, thinking this was something that might lay the groundwork for an ETF approval.

if you look into what clayton said exactly, he implied it won't be the SEC that comes up with new regulations, but other agencies like the IRS, FINCEN, CFTC.

Pressed by Sorkin as to why the SEC doesn’t currently regulate Bitcoin, Clayton said, “Well, let’s put it this way: We do not regulate Bitcoin as a security. When people use crypto assets as securities to raise capital for a venture, the SEC regulates that. And what was happening in the ICO craze was people were using ICOs and essentially making public offerings of securities without registering them with the SEC.”

Clayton clarified that the SEC “determined that Bitcoin was not a security, it was much more a payment mechanism and store of value,” before adding, “the government does regulate payments.”

Even if the SEC isn’t regulating Bitcoin, other government agencies, like the IRS and FinCEN (the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network), could potentially expand the ways in which they already do.

I think this legitimizes Bitcoin and paves the way for more institutional investment.

well it's just talk really, but this is a truly great advertisement coming from a top USA regulator:

"Our current payment mechanisms--have inefficiencies and those inefficiencies are the things that are driving the rise of bitcoin." -jay clayton

Oddly enough Bitcoin was made for poor people but now the rich are taking it over slowly.

i don't think it was made for poor people. it was made so that all people could sidestep banks and other middlemen.

[dothebeats]

What Clayton did was to actually clarify SEC's limits on regulating cryptocurrency. They deem that bitcoin is not a form of security, hence their department does not concern of its regulations and other legal aspects, though was quick to point out that other government agencies focusing more on payments and store of value may be able to do so. This pushes the thought of legitimizing bitcoin in the realm of finance even more, and may even cause the other chairmen of the different finance departments of the government to draft regulations for cryptocurrencies. It's not much of a big deal, but knowing that bitcoin hasn't fallen into deaf ears is already a good sign.

[24Kt]

What Clayton did was to actually clarify SEC's limits on regulating cryptocurrency. They deem that bitcoin is not a form of security, hence their department does not concern of its regulations and other legal aspects, though was quick to point out that other government agencies focusing more on payments and store of value may be able to do so. This pushes the thought of legitimizing bitcoin in the realm of finance even more, and may even cause the other chairmen of the different finance departments of the government to draft regulations for cryptocurrencies. It's not much of a big deal, but knowing that bitcoin hasn't fallen into deaf ears is already a good sign.

It is better to give the crypto business regulation to people that really know the importance of crypto in the finance and payment sector. Because the more knowledgeable a department is towards crypto, the better they can formulate with laws and regulations, which may favour the crypto side.

[exstasie]

What Clayton did was to actually clarify SEC's limits on regulating cryptocurrency. They deem that bitcoin is not a form of security, hence their department does not concern of its regulations and other legal aspects, though was quick to point out that other government agencies focusing more on payments and store of value may be able to do so.

Exactly, and the first thing that comes to mind is the new FATF guidance (the "Travel Rule") established last year. I don't believe Fincen has formally issued new regulations that integrate that guidance. That's one of the new developments I'm expecting in the near future, and unfortunately it's going to mean even more heavy handed AML/KYC requirements from exchanges.

[barbara44]

Honestly I do not see all these companies buying into bitcoin for hundreds of millions of dollars as "taking over bitcoin" because there will always be some bitcoins sold on the market, which means we can all buy bitcoin and they are only making it cost more, and increasing the price is something we would love to see, I hope all these huge companies keep investing into bitcoin and we would profit from it, if we ever want to buy the huge whales and small fish all pay the same price for it and that is fine with me.

I think big companies going in only could be rivaling the other huge companies and nothing else, if a company buys 500 million dollar worth of bitcoin at $20k, the aim for them is to make a profit, so another buying at $10k would be their rival not us.

[Tytanowy Janusz]

"Look! Up in the sky! It's a bird! It's a plane! It's Superman!"

Look at bitcoin .. it's a security! It's a money! it's .... no! it's fk.ing cryptocurrency! government should stop fitting completely new thing into old containers. Its separately new thing that need new container - called cryptocurrency. It's like when first car was invented and people would try to classify it - hmm is it a chaise? locomotive? no! its a car.

Next time SEC will announce that bitcoin is not a donkey so happily it does not need oat?

[figmentofmyass]

government should stop fitting completely new thing into old containers. Its separately new thing that need new container - called cryptocurrency. It's like when first car was invented and people would try to classify it - hmm is it a chaise? locomotive? no! its a car.

even if they pass new laws specifically defining and regulating cryptocurrency, i expect the overall trend of increasing restrictions, increased AML/KYC/CFT bullshit for p2p traders and crypto services, increased reporting to tax authorities, etc to continue. any time new crypto legislation or regulation is passed, it's disappointing as hell.

we always knew bitcoin wasn't a security---no surprises there. at least under the old laws, we know what to expect. i'm enjoying the wild west while it lasts.