List of altcoins SEC considers securities

[dragonvslinux]

Never heard of those mirrored securities. Where did you read this because mTWTR which is basically Twitter is obviously not trading anymore after Elon purchased it. So this is obviously outdated.

As far as I understand, they are "assets" that are supposedly pegged to the stock market prices of said assets, but no idea how they are actually backed. There are otherwise a few exchanges that support this.

Sure mTWTR is an outdated example I guess, its simply based on on the SEC lawsuit and still applies as was available in the specified time-frame. Probably others aren't as available as they sued to be either.

[yazher]

Well they have been saying that xrp is a security for 2 years so i am still waiting for conclusion on that. Many of those i have no clue about and i am wondering why some other obvious securities are not in that list. Maybe they are too low marketcap and low visibility. But i have a feeling that this will be even longer process than anyone thinks. I might be an old man before this is settled.

I also heard this back then I thought XRP was finished after the announcement about the SEC going to get them because of some sort of illegal activities; the price of XRP at that time had dramatically decreased. But XRP is still here, and its price is still at a decent level, I wonder what happened? did they win their case against the Sec lawsuit?

I think it depends on how great the altcoins threat is to them because if they find out that certain altcoins have only small transactions or little liquidity, it won't matter to them. But this kind of negative adjustment by the SEC throughout the years has been affecting the growth of the crypto market which will slow the legalizations by other countries for bitcoin in the future.

[Xal0lex]

How do you think this will affect altcoins in the near future? Notably Bitcoin, Ethereum, Binance Coin and Dogecoin haven't been considered securities, so personally I think value could now flow into them after this announcement (apart from BNB), away from others that are at risk of being sued. Potentially these lawsuits will be fought and won, but otherwise the labelling of these securities may well stick.

I do not rule out that someone is trying to greatly reduce the value of this portfolio of altcoins in order to be able to buy them at a bargain price in anticipation of the impending bull run. The big cryptocurrencies are not affected simply because big capitals are already involved in these assets and such accusations could not badly shake their ecosystem and therefore their price. So they are neatly bypassed, although they could also make the list, especially BNB and DOGE.

[dragonvslinux]

How do you think this will affect altcoins in the near future? Notably Bitcoin, Ethereum, Binance Coin and Dogecoin haven't been considered securities, so personally I think value could now flow into them after this announcement (apart from BNB), away from others that are at risk of being sued. Potentially these lawsuits will be fought and won, but otherwise the labelling of these securities may well stick.

I do not rule out that someone is trying to greatly reduce the value of this portfolio of altcoins in order to be able to buy them at a bargain price in anticipation of the impending bull run. The big cryptocurrencies are not affected simply because big capitals are already involved in these assets and such accusations could not badly shake their ecosystem and therefore their price.

Personally I just think it's part of the 4 year cycle that occurs, the inner workings of it as it were. It's not just Bitcoin going up for a year, then correction, recovery and consolidation, but also the recovery year in the past has been with altcoins failing to keep up with Bitcoin (such as in 2019). 4 years later, we are at the same period as Bitcoin begins to recover in price and it's dominance recovers as a consequence.

Then naturally next year the diversification will return to altcoins, in anticipation of another bull market. It's also not necessarily speculators selling altcoins for fiat currency in order to get them cheaper. They may well be more expensive next year against the dollar. But I'd say it's very likely they will be cheaper to buy with Bitcoin next year, hence there is no reason for speculating on them directly right now.

[gurunanakji777]

The SEC has designated several coins as securities, as we have witnessed with XRP in the past. This means that the growth of these coins will be significantly impacted, as investors will be reluctant to invest their money in such coins. Almost all promising coins have been labeled as securities, which is not favorable for the overall cryptocurrency market. As a result, we can expect to see greater growth in BTC and Ethereum.

[Xal0lex]

I do not rule out that someone is trying to greatly reduce the value of this portfolio of altcoins in order to be able to buy them at a bargain price in anticipation of the impending bull run. The big cryptocurrencies are not affected simply because big capitals are already involved in these assets and such accusations could not badly shake their ecosystem and therefore their price.

Personally I just think it's part of the 4 year cycle that occurs, the inner workings of it as it were. It's not just Bitcoin going up for a year, then correction, recovery and consolidation, but also the recovery year in the past has been with altcoins failing to keep up with Bitcoin (such as in 2019). 4 years later, we are at the same period as Bitcoin begins to recover in price and it's dominance recovers as a consequence.

Then naturally next year the diversification will return to altcoins, in anticipation of another bull market. It's also not necessarily speculators selling altcoins for fiat currency in order to get them cheaper. They may well be more expensive next year against the dollar. But I'd say it's very likely they will be cheaper to buy with Bitcoin next year, hence there is no reason for speculating on them directly right now.

All of this makes sense, unless we witness market cycles break down and stop working. Personally, I don't give much credence to all this crushing on cyclicality, because it could all break down at any moment and cycles, or market trends, could stretch out, over much longer periods, like 5 or 7 years. It would be too easy to hope that everything would repeat all the time every 4 years.

[d5000]

I do not rule out that someone is trying to greatly reduce the value of this portfolio of altcoins in order to be able to buy them at a bargain price in anticipation of the impending bull run. The big cryptocurrencies are not affected simply because big capitals are already involved in these assets and such accusations could not badly shake their ecosystem and therefore their price. So they are neatly bypassed, although they could also make the list, especially BNB and DOGE.

Well, I think it's rational to short cryptos which may have a smaller market due to their categorization as security. I don't really believe they will recover that much. And there were some of the "big" cryptos in the list, such as Cardano.

Regarding "the next coins to be classified as securities", I agree with BNB being a candidate (wasn't it already categorized as a security recently?), but DOGE is decentralized and has no central authorities, neither does it use Proof of Stake or other mechanisms which could be interpreted as "common enterprise", so I believe it's not "in danger". I would not be so sure about ETH, and about almost all coins except these (with DASH as an edge case which already has been accused to be one).

Personally I just think it's part of the 4 year cycle that occurs, the inner workings of it as it were.

All of this makes sense, unless we witness market cycles break down and stop working. Personally, I don't give much credence to all this crushing on cyclicality, because it could all break down at any moment and cycles, or market trends, could stretch out, over much longer periods, like 5 or 7 years. It would be too easy to hope that everything would repeat all the time every 4 years.

Here I agree with Xal0lex. We have to take into account that there were, until now, only two cycles of about 4 years (2013-17 and 2017-21), the previous cycle had only 2 years, and the 2017-21 cycle is debatable due to the low in 2020 and the 2019 high (in some graphs, it's shown as two cycles: 2017-19 and 2019-21).

However I don't see really the connection to the SEC "securities" debate. That's clearly a move independent from market cycles, triggered by a identifiable event (or a group of events, as there are various lawsuits and SEC statements involved which have driven the value of those coins down).

[disconnectme]

All I see here is double standard on the part of SEC, Ethereum was excluded from the list because Ethereum team has warmed herself  to the SEC, Ethereum is one of the most successful ICO in the space and what really caused ICO boom in 2017/2018, I think all these projects needs to come together and fight a winnable fight in my Opinion, if Ethereum is not a Security so is 90% of the tokens in the space, there are some mined tokens also on the list which is very disturbing.

[goaldigger]

All I see here is double standard on the part of SEC, Ethereum was excluded from the list because Ethereum team has warmed herself  to the SEC, Ethereum is one of the most successful ICO in the space and what really caused ICO boom in 2017/2018, I think all these projects needs to come together and fight a winnable fight in my Opinion, if Ethereum is not a Security so is 90% of the tokens in the space, there are some mined tokens also on the list which is very disturbing.

This is the problem with SEC they have the standard and why they are raising this concern late when every investors are already exposed into this project so its hard to say their real motives when it comes to this one. ETH is a good project, probably they anticipated this scenario and adjust accordingly which other developer can also be done before making a project, make sure that SEC will not see any irregularities with your projects or else, it will not be easy for you to attract more investors.

[Hispo]

I find the inclusion of BUSD in this list by the SEC to be ridiculous. Why would be an asset which people hopes or wants to continue to be stable through time to be consider a security?

Also, in the case of DASH it could be because the system of governance they use in order to make the protocol to advance further in adoption and volume, still there are some many coins and tokens which are not necessarily shitcoins. 

It gives me the impression the SEC is really trying to make Cryptocurrency to get out the way before they launch their centralized CBDC.
The Monero guys must be bullish in the long term on this despair showed by the SEC.

[Xal0lex]

Here I agree with Xal0lex. We have to take into account that there were, until now, only two cycles of about 4 years (2013-17 and 2017-21), the previous cycle had only 2 years, and the 2017-21 cycle is debatable due to the low in 2020 and the 2019 high (in some graphs, it's shown as two cycles: 2017-19 and 2019-21).

However I don't see really the connection to the SEC "securities" debate. That's clearly a move independent from market cycles, triggered by a identifiable event (or a group of events, as there are various lawsuits and SEC statements involved which have driven the value of those coins down).

The market is still very young, so these cycles can only be a coincidence and do not determine in any way what should happen in the future. I see these 4-year cycles mentioned very often on this forum, and in my opinion, cryptocurrencies are still too young to use this cyclicality as a pattern or something like that. It might make sense if, for example, 80 years go by and this cyclicality keeps repeating itself over those years.

[dragonvslinux]

Personally I just think it's part of the 4 year cycle that occurs, the inner workings of it as it were.

All of this makes sense, unless we witness market cycles break down and stop working. Personally, I don't give much credence to all this crushing on cyclicality, because it could all break down at any moment and cycles, or market trends, could stretch out, over much longer periods, like 5 or 7 years. It would be too easy to hope that everything would repeat all the time every 4 years.

Here I agree with Xal0lex. We have to take into account that there were, until now, only two cycles of about 4 years (2013-17 and 2017-21), the previous cycle had only 2 years, and the 2017-21 cycle is debatable due to the low in 2020 and the 2019 high (in some graphs, it's shown as two cycles: 2017-19 and 2019-21).

Sure the 4 year cycles remain subjective, as well as in regards to Bitcoin's dominance that I was mainly referring to. In 2019 Bitcoin saw a considerable rise in both price and domination, so I see 2023 being similar. Even though despite 2022 bear market Bitcoin's dominance remained relatively flat compared to 2018 bear market when it also rose back above 50% - which I generally consider a key metric.

Overall in the past 6 years it's ranged between around 35% and 70% and generally above or below 50% it continues to move in the same direction, at least historically this has been the case. So my general point was SEC lawsuits or not, I've still been anticipating Bitcoin's dominance to increase along with price this year, and if anything have been surprised it's taken this long to start climbing again.

[Blitzboy]

I find the inclusion of BUSD in this list by the SEC to be ridiculous. Why would be an asset which people hopes or wants to continue to be stable through time to be consider a security?

Also, in the case of DASH it could be because the system of governance they use in order to make the protocol to advance further in adoption and volume, still there are some many coins and tokens which are not necessarily shitcoins. 

It gives me the impression the SEC is really trying to make Cryptocurrency to get out the way before they launch their centralized CBDC.
The Monero guys must be bullish in the long term on this despair showed by the SEC.

No doubt, your point about the SEC's decision to classify BUSD as a security is puzzling. Its like labeling a spoon as a knife; it just doesn't fit. A stablecoin's value isnt expected to appreciate over time but to stay stable. Its in the name, for Satoshi's sake

As for DASH, its governance structure does differentiate it from others. However, it still doesn't fully explain the SEC's reasoning. Maybe they are simply overwhelmed by the sheer diversity in the crypto world.

Your theory about the SEC prepping the stage for CBDCs isnt far-fetched. Its like a chess game; they're positioning their pieces for the end game. As for Monero, yeah, they're probably smiling ear-to-ear. The SEC's frantic moves might be fueling the bulls for privacy-focused coins.

[Godday]

I hope they will win. But it is very hard to think that those 4 coins would also be considered securities. I think it will. If we look at the moment, of course, this is the biggest lawsuit against cryptocurrencies. Even though it only operates in the United States, the SEC can deal a huge blow to cryptocurrencies. It's tough because they filed a lot of lawsuits against Binance and if it's going to be criminal charges, I think all cryptocurrencies will be affected.

[Ultegra134]

I find the inclusion of BUSD in this list by the SEC to be ridiculous. Why would be an asset which people hopes or wants to continue to be stable through time to be consider a security?

Also, in the case of DASH it could be because the system of governance they use in order to make the protocol to advance further in adoption and volume, still there are some many coins and tokens which are not necessarily shitcoins. 

It gives me the impression the SEC is really trying to make Cryptocurrency to get out the way before they launch their centralized CBDC.
The Monero guys must be bullish in the long term on this despair showed by the SEC.

My guess is that it's for the same reason that BNB is on the same list. In my opinion, the SEC is after altcoins; they can't go after Bitcoin, which is the main reason that it didn't collapse during the whole ordeal. The list includes a large variety of Altcoins, many of which I haven't heard of before, but there are some quite well-known ones, such as Polygon or Cardano. On the one hand, I'm all in on going after scam coins such as LUNC and LUNA or coins that basically serve no purpose, such as Bittorrent, of which I'm not quite sure if its developers even bother with it anymore. Thus, I understand why some coins were included, but some others are certainly not securities.