Kraken, UK trade body derides lawmaker description of crypto as ‘gambling’

[hatshepsut93]

Bitcoin is a commodity, most altcoins like ether are securities. Why can lawmakers think that crypto are like gambling. Are the lawmakers right about this?

Bitcoin is not a commodity, because Bitcoin is not being consumed, it is a fiat currency - a currency with no intrinsic value and no use cases other than being a currency. Ethereum is more like a commodity, because it is used to pay fees on Ethereum network, which is used for decentralized applications. But it also tries to be a currency and a security.

The rest of the coins can be classified as gambling or ponzi schemes, because they don't have any real life use cases, only empty promises for luring investors. And it's pretty bad that people "invest" in them, hoping to get rich quick, but only end up losing money most of the time.

[1715226742]

1715226742

[1715226742]

1715226742

[1715226742]

1715226742

[1715226742]

1715226742

[1715226742]

1715226742

[o48o]

Well this is really weird. I guess exchanges no longer need to do special complex hoops for permissions for trading as they can just replace those by asking gambling permit for curacao. :
That's the only reasoning i see behind this like they would want to wash their hands about this.

Obviously i know this can't be the case but i am confused about what is their end game here. What are they planning now?

[Oshosondy]

Some may take this negatively but there's some truth to what they claim since a super majority of cryptocurrencies really have little to no intrinsic value so "investing" in them may be considered as gambling. If you say it's not then just take a look at those frogs inserted on the blockchain. I personally think putting money on those types of crypto is like buying a lottery ticket. Of course there are a few with actual utility but the problem is how will regulators separate them from the rest when they make legislative proposals.

I agree on this, but the problem is that bitcoin is categorised as crypto too and as a risky asset class. Only in few countries like USA that still go further to categorised bitcoin as a commodity which makes it better. If you truly look at it, there are many ICO, IEO and IDO scams in the past, there are still many more scam now, like the present BRC20 tokens which is a hype that will still go down and also in a way that they are existing for some people to be lose money. Many altcoins are gambling. But there is still hope in buying coins that to be gambling.

[dimonstration]

Self-regulatory organization CryptoUK and crypto exchange Kraken have slammed a recent report from a panel of British lawmakers that suggested crypto should be regulated in a similar vein to gambling.

Crypto is not gambling, we all know that. But crypto can be seen as gambling for some people that do not understand much about them because crypto gives more hope than gambling.

At least on UK they still categorized crypto as manageable for regulation despite they are categorizing it as gambling. Here in my country which most lawmakers doesn’t have any idea on crypto. They categorized it as a very risky investment same as scam that is worst than gambling. Our own government discouraged us to invest on cryptocurrency and even doesn’t have time to make a proper law for it.

I don’t know how UK regulate gambling but for some reason. I understand the risk that they are considering since crypto is not only composed with Bitcoin. The majority of crypto assets are scam and shady. There’s thousands of crypto being mint per day. I think they should exclude Bitcoin on this kind of law.

[hugeblack]

I think you misunderstood what they are trying to say, that they mean that cryptocurrency trading is more like gambling and therefore it should be classified accordingly because it is a high-risk investment as gambling is an attribute of the nature of investment and not something in itself.

Self-regulatory organization CryptoUK and crypto exchange Kraken have slammed a recent report from a panel of British lawmakers that suggested crypto should be regulated in a similar vein to gambling.

Generally, though the classification varies a lot you still need to verify identity before trading and these platforms need a license to operate in the UK.
Personally, I see that the United States has a leading role here, and once it establishes a clear organization in the United States, I believe that many countries will start following the same approach to reach a global organization.

But in any case, it is unlikely that Bitcoin will be classified as a legal tender, but rather an asset or a commodity.

[Fiatless]

Read it completely on the link, or read the quote

https://blockchair.com/news/kraken-uk-trade-body-derides-lawmaker-description-of-crypto-as-gambling--dcfaa70466

Self-regulatory organization CryptoUK and crypto exchange Kraken have slammed a recent report from a panel of British lawmakers that suggested crypto should be regulated in a similar vein to gambling.

Crypto is not gambling, we all know that. But crypto can be seen as gambling for some people that do not understand much about them because crypto gives more hope than gambling.

Bitcoin is a commodity, most altcoins like ether are securities. Why can lawmakers think that crypto are like gambling. Are the lawmakers right about this?

Everybody or institution is entitled to their own opinion. People are free to see things differently based on their experiences and views. They are seeing the crypto sector through the lens of the current abuse of crypto coin creation and investment. Even as we speak now hundreds of shitcoins is been created. These developers are flooding the market with worthless coins that crumble in no time.

Some people see the sector as a get-quick-rich avenue. These people have turned the crypto space into a casino. They buy various risky shitcoins intending to sell them off in a few days and make instant profit.

But we shouldn't also forget that anti-crypto forces will keep on giving the sector a bad name to discourage people from abandoning the failing banks.

[Wexnident]

Well if they mean crypto trading, then it CAN technically be one, just that it isn't exactly the word I'd use as something that encompasses the entirety of it. Otherwise, the entire investment market might as well be one. Or maybe the meaning of gambling changed at some point that I wasn't familiar with.

Well, I'd give them the benefit of the doubt if they actually make a separate law instead of categorizing it as gambling fully since I won't deny that crypto (trading) is indeed a high (very) risk type of investment in most cases. If they do actually categorize it LIKE gambling, then I'd be kinda disappointed with how the meeting went since from the article, the meeting had plenty of evidence explaining what crypto (trading) actually is.

[jacafbiz]

I think all these stupid people need to be voted out of office and put the right set of people in power that have a good understanding of Crypto in office and are sympathetic towards our course, let's put crypto on ballot paper this time. Crypto has made a lot of people rich and it is time to start using this money to shape the policy, let's decide the future we want not all these corrupt people

[justdimin]

Everybody or institution is entitled to their own opinion. People are free to see things differently based on their experiences and views. They are seeing the crypto sector through the lens of the current abuse of crypto coin creation and investment. Even as we speak now hundreds of shitcoins is been created. These developers are flooding the market with worthless coins that crumble in no time.

Some people see the sector as a get-quick-rich avenue. These people have turned the crypto space into a casino. They buy various risky shitcoins intending to sell them off in a few days and make instant profit.

But we shouldn't also forget that anti-crypto forces will keep on giving the sector a bad name to discourage people from abandoning the failing banks.

Isn't it unfortunate that it is allowed to be like that? I mean I get the coins that have no ownership, no dev at the top, not looking for the team to do something, that is how it used to be. Today? We fund a team to build us a good project that can get us rich, basically a ponzi scheme and nothing more, if that team doesn't make the project go well, then we are not going to see anything do better at all. This isn't really the way to go, we should be able to actually see it move further and do better as well.

I understand that people are at a level where it is going to be a trouble, but we just need to handle it a lot better in the end, it should be a lot easier to figure out. All in all we are at a level where it is going to cause us to see it differently one day.