Do you accept ?

[Husires]

If SEC define it as security, would that be correct? What is true is that Bitcoin is a decentralized currency and thus definitions otherwise are not important or accurate. Therefore, they are defined correctly as not security.
The question remains, will it be accepted as legal tender or not? This is something that will not happen in the medium and short term.
For altcoins, it is only a matter of time before most of them die.

[1714655416]

1714655416

[cryptosize]

I wonder if PoW altcoins (like Monero) are considered commodities or securities.

So far, only Bitcoin is not considered as commodity or security.

It is one of biggest reasons you should prioritize to pick Bitcoin for your portfolio. Ethereum, BNB and other altcoins have risk to be considered as commodity or security in future.

The whole cryptocurrency community are waiting for a final decision for XRP lawsuit case. It will open a gate for SEC to aim at more altcoin projects or it will reduce pressure and risk on altcoin projects if Ripple XRP succeeds to win the lawsuit or at least have a way to handle it with SEC, in peace.

I don't actually believe SEC will file that lawsuit if they see they fail it so a chance for Ripple is handling it with SEC, with money likely.

The risk against Ethereum forced Coinbase to delist Ethereum Classic months ago. I guess they thought SEC will aim at the initial project that raised fund and it is Ethereum Classic, not Ethereum.

I think you're confused.

Commodity = good
Security = bad

So far SEC has said that BTC can be considered a commodity, unlike many alts (especially PoS ones).

[crunck]

The question remains, will it be accepted as legal tender or not? This is something that will not happen in the medium and short term.

Even long term, I suspect, it won't happen. Developed countries have stable economies and currencies, they have no reason to accept bitcoin as legal tender, no different than they kill their own currency. Only countries that are experiencing economic difficulties and deadlocks will accept bitcoin as an opportunity.

[crypticj]

I think the fact that SEC acknowledges ANY crypto as the security is already a great sign that adoption is going in the right direction. I think they will accept that bitcoin IS security sooner or later.

[Hamza2424]

So why did SEC now accepts that everything apart from Bitcoin is security? This makes me smile that they keep Bitcoin out of the hook but is it true that all other crypto projects can be considered a security?

What do you think? Oh, and here you go, before you ask where did I read this news from

https://cryptomaton.medium.com/sec-everything-apart-from-bitcoin-is-a-security-ef371b1f0bd3

Dear, I don't care about what SEC thinks, One more thing I consider. Bitcoin as a digital Asset. Things are not complex here the point is how you take Bitcoin. One narrative is Bitcoin is just a currency willing to use as the global medium of exchange and some are willing to consider it a pure store of value. In my view, both narratives stand reasonable. SEC and PBOC and all these Financial authorities, whatever they can do they will to stop the global adoption of Bitcoin.

Things get a clear indication after the IMF policies for Bitcoin adoption in IMF-funded countries that Global Financial market authorities are afraid of Bitcoin's future preeminence.

[gunhell16]

Securities are issued by organizations, and almost all altcoins are issued by well-known developers.

I agree with what you said here.

Bitcoin is decentralized, altcoins are not.

You said it correctly again, but there are still other altcoins that are decentralized, but most of the altcoins are centralized.

Unknown to Satoshi Nakamoto, this makes bitcoin look like a commodity like gold and silver. This makes bitcoin look natural, although it is artificial.

Indeed, Nakamoto is not well known but he became popular because of Bitcoin. What is wrong with other governments of other countries is that they are trying to control bitcoin when it is impossible to happen. It's also true that bitcoin is just an artificial currency or fake money, but among all the fakes, I've seen only bitcoin that can be converted to real money around the world and increase the value of all currencies around the world as well.

Look at altcoins becoming more centralized, from PoW to PoS, many of them now use PoS with ether.

Ethereum may have gone from POW to POS but that doesn't mean Ethereum can't go back to POW.

[kryptqnick]

Bitcoin has some features that make it similar to securities and I'm sure many people use it like security. For example, it is often seen as an investment, it can be traded on third-party platforms (exchanges), people expect Bitcoin to rise in power, and there are Bitcoin funds that can manage one's holdings (although using them is completely optional). But, as _act_ pointed out, there are also notable distinctions that make Bitcoin different from securities. Overall, I think it's reasonable SEC doesn't treat Bitcoin as a security, and it's probably for the best because otherwise Bitcoin would have more oversight, be more regulated (at least, in the US).

[_act_]

Bitcoin has some features that make it similar to securities and I'm sure many people use it like security. For example, it is often seen as an investment, it can be traded on third-party platforms (exchanges), people expect Bitcoin to rise in power, and there are Bitcoin funds that can manage one's holdings (although using them is completely optional).

Example of commodities are re gold, crude oil and any other things that are physical, naturally created and not created by organizations but known to be available on earth naturally that people see valuable. Gold is also an investment, people invest in it because they know that it's price can increase.

Gold and many other commodities are traded on exchanges too, but know that the future market for bitcoin is not actually bitcoin, bitcoin is bought on a spot market, but you can also buy and hold gold.

[tjtonmoy]

So why did SEC now accepts that everything apart from Bitcoin is a security?

Because they can have control over any crypto if they choose to, apart from Bitcoin. They fear what they can't control. All the other crypto and exchanges are centralized sh*t. They will always favor the one they can control. No surprise there.
Whatever they do or say to bring down Bitcoin, remember 1 Bitcoin = 1 Bitcoin. These are the people who will be craving later on to legalize Bitcoin. No doubt about that.

[serjent05]

So why did SEC now accepts that everything apart from Bitcoin is a security?

Because they can have control over any crypto if they choose to, apart from Bitcoin. They fear what they can't control. All the other crypto and exchanges are centralized sh*t. They will always favor the one they can control. No surprise there.
Whatever they do or say to bring down Bitcoin, remember 1 Bitcoin = 1 Bitcoin. These are the people who will be craving later on to legalize Bitcoin. No doubt about that.

I highly agree, altcoins that have an active developer have access on the code and they can do whatever they wanted and the government can pressure them to do what they wanted these developers to do.  One good example is creating new coins and implementing a swap, and those who failed to swap will have their unswapped coins useless because the developer decided to.  With Bitcoin, there may be hardforks but your Bitcoin is intact, and no need to move when hard fork happens.

[panganib999]

Is important to understand how bitcoin is a global tool, and not only a USA tool. And each country is in its right to see bitcoin as the way it works better for them. As a good example, we can see how El Salvador decide to make bitcoin a coin, and that works fine for them, but for other countries, Bitcoin is a Digital Asset or a Security... So, it depends on each country, we don't really have global laws for cryptos yet.

Exactly. The very reason bitcoin couldn't be considered a security is due to the fact that it is decentralized, and therefore not released and maintained by any known organization unlike most Altcoins on the market right now, which as stated by some here are already becoming more and more centralized, with some even being built in the PoS network instead of the conventional PoW version. In any case, I think this is for the best, because at least bitcoin's not gonna be the center of their regulation efforts, or at least I think.

Bitcoin has some features that make it similar to securities and I'm sure many people use it like security. For example, it is often seen as an investment, it can be traded on third-party platforms (exchanges), people expect Bitcoin to rise in power, and there are Bitcoin funds that can manage one's holdings (although using them is completely optional). But, as _act_ pointed out, there are also notable distinctions that make Bitcoin different from securities. Overall, I think it's reasonable SEC doesn't treat Bitcoin as a security, and it's probably for the best because otherwise Bitcoin would have more oversight, be more regulated (at least, in the US).

It is basically a form of security without the label, much like Pluto failing to be classified as a planet due to failing on some criteria. But I digress, bitcoin could operate with or without the securities classification, arguably even better than if it were to be considered a security.

[nullama]

So why did SEC now accepts that everything apart from Bitcoin is a security? This makes me smile that they keep Bitcoin out of the hook but is it true that all other crypto projects can be considered a security?

What do you think? Oh, and here you go, before you ask where I read this news from

https://cryptomaton.medium.com/sec-everything-apart-from-bitcoin-is-a-security-ef371b1f0bd3

I think it makes sense that any altcoin is a security, they have board of directors, etc. Bitcoin is completely decentralized, and should not be treated as a security, because it is not.

They got it right in this time I think.

[tjtonmoy]

I highly agree, altcoins that have an active developer have access on the code and they can do whatever they wanted and the government can pressure them to do what they wanted these developers to do.  One good example is creating new coins and implementing a swap, and those who failed to swap will have their unswapped coins useless because the developer decided to.  With Bitcoin, there may be hardforks but your Bitcoin is intact, and no need to move when hard fork happens.

Thanks for explaining that in details. But the importance of BTC is always a bad thing in government's eye. They know the benefits, but the only thing that's stopping them to legalize it is the fact that they can't control it. Well, there's nothing to worry about it. Bitcoin is a proof of work based coin. So as long as people have trust in it and keep using it, whatever the government do, it will still thrive.

[Flexystar]

Bitcoin is decentralized, altcoins are not decentralized.

What could be the best security than having all the funds distributed over a network through millions of blocks? SEC should understand that bitcoin is having more security than the fiat and Altcoins itself. In fact there is no guarantee that whether a government issued bond would be worth anything in the future considering the way world is moving into dark hole of inflation and crisis.

What could stay valuable in such crisis? Something that has power of people, guessing that we have distributed ledger of bitcoin.

Could take little time to process all this but I think it is what it is.

[nullama]

If SEC define it as security, would that be correct? What is true is that Bitcoin is a decentralized currency and thus definitions otherwise are not important or accurate. Therefore, they are defined correctly as not security.
The question remains, will it be accepted as legal tender or not? This is something that will not happen in the medium and short term.
For altcoins, it is only a matter of time before most of them die.

Accepted as legal tender where?

It's already legal tender in El Salvador and in the Central African Republic.

I reckon the US will probably be one of the last places where it would be legal tender, as the US is the strongest fiat at the moment.

But let's remember that before the USD there was the British Pound, and the Spanish Real. Things change, and they change faster and faster. I can see that there won't be any next new fiat, but instead there would be a Bitcoin standard to replace USD dominance.

Of course the USA won't want that to happen so it won't make it a legal tender there.

[raidarksword]

SEC is greedy no matter what, they keep tailing everything in crypto as security. They never stop until they are in control of this crypto space that's why everyone are siding with XRP because they are the only one can pair up with SEC. XRP is the last stand to protect everyone in the crypto space and breakdown SEC greediness once in for all.

[nullama]

SEC is greedy no matter what, they keep tailing everything in crypto as security. They never stop until they are in control of this crypto space that's why everyone are siding with XRP because they are the only one can pair up with SEC. XRP is the last stand to protect everyone in the crypto space and breakdown SEC greediness once in for all.

If you have some altcoin controlled by some group of people, then that's clearly a security, unless I'm missing something.

It's basically a company without all the regulations to protect the people that put their money into it.

Bitcoin is not a security though, it would be more comparable to gold in this scenario.

[cryptosize]

SEC is greedy no matter what, they keep tailing everything in crypto as security. They never stop until they are in control of this crypto space that's why everyone are siding with XRP because they are the only one can pair up with SEC. XRP is the last stand to protect everyone in the crypto space and breakdown SEC greediness once in for all.

"Everyone"?

[laurenB7742]

SEC is greedy no matter what, they keep tailing everything in crypto as security. They never stop until they are in control of this crypto space that's why everyone are siding with XRP because they are the only one can pair up with SEC. XRP is the last stand to protect everyone in the crypto space and breakdown SEC greediness once in for all.

I also think that their real aim is to find a way to control the whole market and us, and nothing else. They have ignored us for years, and now they have seen the potential of the market, so they will try to catch it. A few months ago, a few leaks showed that XRP has an advantage over the SEC, but there is no final verdict, and I really have a hard time believing that XRP will win the SEC. Because the SEC also knows that winning will be the best springboard to enter the crypto market and control it legally.

[Hispo]

According to what I have read before on this matter, all comes to whether a cryptocurrency is "decentralized enough" or not.
So we could say that Ethereum and other "foundation" based assets could find some trouble in the future, in the case the SEC starts to create some precedents with the lawsuit against Paxos and other lawsuits against Ripple, ect.

Bitcoin cannot be touched and that is what matters. This may incentivize the ecosystem to move further away from centralization, which is good. 

I wonder if PoW altcoins (like Monero) are considered commodities or securities.

Knowing how the government of certain countries may think of privacy, they may not think Monero is a security, but rather a threat to national security and global peace as a whole.