The SEC is right. It's not about Bitcoin, it's about centralized shitcoins.

[irhact]

So let's calm down. This is not against Bitcoin. It's against shady business models where companies pretend they are decentralized but aren't, and want a cheaper and less consumer-protecting way to finance their businesses (or directly run away with your money). And it's also about crypto exchanges pretending they aren't banks - but they are, as long as they offer products like so-called "staking" (which nothing has to do with real proof-of-stake).

It brings me hope that Bitcoin seems to be the least affected by the last price drop after the SEC accusations. People seem to begin to understand

Don't be too quick to conclude because Bitcoin been less affected doesn't means people are begining to understand. Do you think if this lawsuit happened in 2022 when it was the main bear market that it won't have affected Bitcoin more than it did. I think why the dump isn't showing much on Bitcoin is because the market has let go of many of the weak hands and sellers and now mostly long term holders and diamond hands are in the Bitcoin market.

Altcoins still has many weak hands and that's one of the reasons they got the biggest dump and also from history, altcoins dump more whenever Bitcoin dump also the lawsuit is targeted at altcoins so they're also dumping because of that. SEC are targeting centralized exchange not bitcoin.

[1715182722]

1715182722

[1715182722]

1715182722

[1715182722]

1715182722

[Renampun]

I'm tired to read all the comments in the vein of "the SEC is threatening the crypto world" or "the SEC wants Bitcoin to stay small".  

The SEC's action against Coinbase and Binance has quite clear accusations: these exchanges allowed trading of securities without being authorized to do so. And they offered services like "staking" which are quite similar to bank products and thus also need authorization.

Is any of these accusations related to Bitcoin? No. The SEC has already clarified that Bitcoin is not a security. So the accusations have nothing to do with Bitcoin.

...

who said that the actions taken by the SEC were targeting Bitcoin? of the many posts I've read, none of them mention that the SEC is targeting Bitcoin, but what they do to exchanges like Binance and Coinbase can have a significant impact on the crypto market globally and it really affects the valuation of Bitcoin. So indirectly, their actions also have an effect on Bitcoin and other coins.

also, this means that Bitcoin and other coins have the potential to be banned in America if they so choose. they just need to mention that bitcoin threatens the existence of the dollar and ban it, I believe that the global crypto market will drop significantly. so the actions taken by the SEC also don't need to be justified because they really have bad intentions towards cryptocurrencies.

[Wind_FURY]

I'm tired to read all the comments in the vein of "the SEC is threatening the crypto world" or "the SEC wants Bitcoin to stay small".  

The SEC's action against Coinbase and Binance has quite clear accusations: these exchanges allowed trading of securities without being authorized to do so. And they offered services like "staking" which are quite similar to bank products and thus also need authorization.

Is any of these accusations related to Bitcoin? No. The SEC has already clarified that Bitcoin is not a security. So the accusations have nothing to do with Bitcoin.

Instead, the accusations are deeply related to the mess the altcoin world has become in the last years, mostly since the "ICO craze" of 2017/18. More than 95% of all altcoins, I would estimate 98-99%, are managed in a completely centralized way, with a team in charge of everything collecting large profits. The most notorious example are the premines. These businesses create coins out of thin air - just a "bug" of the fiat world many Bitcoiners want to "fix" - to pay for marketing, bounties and shills with tokens. These tokens and coins are ... securities.

You don't have to be even a Bitcoin maximalist - I tolerate altcoins with decentralized components and ICOs which are clearly focused on a non-crypto product - to see that these developments have nothing to do with Satoshi's ideal of a decentralized peer to peer cash.

So let's calm down. This is not against Bitcoin. It's against shady business models where companies pretend they are decentralized but aren't, and want a cheaper and less consumer-protecting way to finance their businesses (or directly run away with your money). And it's also about crypto exchanges pretending they aren't banks - but they are, as long as they offer products like so-called "staking" (which nothing has to do with real proof-of-stake).

It brings me hope that Bitcoin seems to be the least affected by the last price drop after the SEC accusations. People seem to begin to understand

Actually no. Or more accurately, it might not be just about that. The rabbit hole might be deeper.

Tin-foil hats on.

Besides doing rate hikes, breaking crypto exchanges in the United States is part of a bigger plan to stop/limit the export of U.S. Dollars overseas. Why? Because the U.S. Government is aware that China might sell their U.S. Treasuries, then by making U.S. Dollars more in demand, it would prevent China from selling them unless it's at discounted prices. Plus an increase in Dollar demand would give the U.S. more allowance to print and buy more dumped Treasuries. It's a debt game and crypto exchanges might merely be casualties of the game.

[rat03gopoh]

My curious question is, do the majority of crypto users care about centralized coins or not if most of their time in this space is only utilizing exchange services or in other words the exchange for them is everything, not the coin?
I think this question will be the reason why binance still has the "power" to exert influence apart from being considered the most trusted.

[Ozero]

And nobody cares what the sec thinks or does because at the end this is a battle they can not 100% win. You shut one down another will just come up, best thing about decentralization.
Yeah, they may say whatever is convenient to make it look btc is not the target, but suing two of the top most exchange with huge btc volume can certainly shake the very core of the market. Most likely be the end of many investors going out of the crypto space.

This war will not end until the Russian occupiers try to seize the territory of Ukraine and until the last Russian occupier leaves Ukraine or lies down in its land. Now there are over 300,000 Russian soldiers on the territory of Ukraine who are shooting at Ukrainians with all types of weapons. Ukrainians are forced to defend their country, because they are killed only for their pro-Ukrainian position. That is, Russia wants to destroy Ukraine as a state and the Ukrainians themselves as a nation. Therefore, it is very strange to hear that, while defending their country, Ukrainians are fighting for the United States, and not for their freedom and independence.

During the summer months, the offensive of the Armed Forces of Ukraine in the south will reach the Sea of Azov and cut Russia's land corridor to the Crimea. The Crimean bridge that Russia built to connect mainland Russia with the Crimean peninsula will also be destroyed. After that, the entire southern front of the Russians in Ukraine will crumble and the victory of Ukraine in this war will become obvious.

[kryptqnick]

I agree with the op about the Bitcoin part, I've also mentioned it recently in another thread. SEC's position on Bitcoin is decent, fair. They want nothing to do with it because Bitcoin is not like the stuff they regulate. That being said, the SEC going after huge crypto companies has a negative impact overall, and on Bitcoin as well, because these are trusted companies that people use for cryptos, including Bitcoin. So I hope the lawsuits will be settled peacefully, without the companies needing to abandon the US market.

[d5000]

of the many posts I've read, none of them mention that the SEC is targeting Bitcoin, but what they do to exchanges like Binance and Coinbase can have a significant impact on the crypto market globally and it really affects the valuation of Bitcoin. So indirectly, their actions also have an effect on Bitcoin and other coins.

What I've read several times is that the SEC is targeting the whole crypto world or crypto sector, and that they want the sector to stay small (at least in the US). See this post for example. Or the last sentence of your own post :

[...] so the actions taken by the SEC also don't need to be justified because they really have bad intentions towards cryptocurrencies.

I have seen some of the communications of the SEC and it seemed to me more that they're worried about just these practices I describe in the OP: "pseudo-staking" and ICOs. They seemed more worried about consumer protection.

Your conclusion is also a bit strange:

also, this means that Bitcoin and other coins have the potential to be banned in America if they so choose. they just need to mention that bitcoin threatens the existence of the dollar and ban it, I believe that the global crypto market will drop significantly.

I am not a legal expert but I believe the SEC cannot ban Bitcoin, not even in the US, because it's not a security. To ban it, a law would be needed, and it's difficult to imagine one in a democracy banning Bitcoin but not interfering in freedom of contract. I think the anti-bitcoin sector in the US (those around Elizabeth Warren) are trying another strategy: make Bitcoin/cryptocurrency services so unattractive with enormous KYC requirements that many wouldn't like to bother with that and simply quit investing. This is however another story for me, and isn't related to the current SEC action.


@Wind_FURY : I don't really understand your theory What do you mean with "making the dollar more in demand"? Increasing demand of dollars by making them more scarce? But how can a crackdown on (local!) crypto exchanges help with that?

[The Sceptical Chymist]

Instead, the accusations are deeply related to the mess the altcoin world has become in the last years, mostly since the "ICO craze" of 2017/18. More than 95% of all altcoins, I would estimate 98-99%, are managed in a completely centralized way, with a team in charge of everything collecting large profits.

I agree with half of what you said above; I don't think the ICO mania had anything to do with the SEC's current scrutiny of crypto.  I think disasters like FTX and all the other collapses that caused a lot of people to lose a lot of money caught the attention of regulators (though the SEC does seem to have its eyes on staking coins and the like). 

But you're absolutely correct about many of the newer coins having teams behind them and being so much less decentralized than bitcoin.  That's ultimately what turned me off of PoS coins, as I could see that if there's a team in charge anything could happen.  I saw NEO's staking system completely change for the worse, and TRX recently changed things up with holders basically having no say in the matter.  All of that goes against what bitcoin and crypto in general stand for.

These actions against exchanges on the part of the SEC are ridiculous, though.  They're not giving any guidelines on what's what, and they're just bringing charges against businesses trying to do the right thing (but not knowing exactly what the right thing is).  Leave it to an alphabet agency to fuck things up big time.

[Gyfts]

So let's calm down. This is not against Bitcoin. It's against shady business models where companies pretend they are decentralized but aren't, and want a cheaper and less consumer-protecting way to finance their businesses (or directly run away with your money). And it's also about crypto exchanges pretending they aren't banks - but they are, as long as they offer products like so-called "staking" (which nothing has to do with real proof-of-stake).

The exact lawsuit is alleging fraud by Binance in addition to operating as an unregistered securities exchange. So they're dragging Changpeng Zhao through the mud even if it's only about altcoins. This isn't even counting the Coinbase lawsuit either, filed at the same time.

Knowing how these federal agencies operate, if these were really about shitcoins, the U.S. government would've been more adamant about clarifying the regulatory framework on crypto instead of throwing out lawsuits to every exchange in their jurisdiction. Perhaps their intentions truly are to protect the consumers, but a lot of nefarious initiatives starts off with good intent.

[Ultegra134]

I understand that the SEC is against a few selection of Altcoins that were labelled as securities, and not Bitcoin or Cryptocurrencies in general. However, firstly, I don't agree with the declaration of BNB as a security and a few others coins as well, I don't understand why it was declared as such, perhaps because it's a product of Binance, i haven't investigated any further. Secondly, the whole lawsuit may not be against Bitcoin, but it's hurting it in the process as well.

Anyway, I just read that the SEC has reached an agreement in order to keep the exchange open. Thus, I'm suspecting a speedy recovery for the market quite soon.

Source: https://www.binance.com/en/feed/post/660451?ref=500919000&utm_campaign=app_share_link

[Ziskinberg]

The SEC is not our enemy nor it was against crypto adoption but they are against useless projects that scammers tried to get some space on known exchanges and use this as a medium to scam innocent people. Unfortunately, most of us misunderstood what they want to happen in the crypto space and that is to wipe out all shitcoins that flooded the market due to rising complaints against them.
They are helping the crypto space free from such fraudulent acts and scam projects - and I see their vital role in improving and building trust.

[DanWalker]

The SEC is not our enemy nor it was against crypto adoption but they are against useless projects that scammers tried to get some space on known exchanges and use this as a medium to scam innocent people. Unfortunately, most of us misunderstood what they want to happen in the crypto space and that is to wipe out all shitcoins that flooded the market due to rising complaints against them.
They are helping the crypto space free from such fraudulent acts and scam projects - and I see their vital role in improving and building trust.

From what you said, it seems that the SEC is not just trying to make the crypto industry cleaner by creating a regulatory framework to regulate the industry and prevent fraudulent projects from being created freely. On the other hand, SEC is also trying to help investors like us get rid of scam projects, and we will have a healthier investment environment. If that's really what they're doing, then they're really too good, and I'll support them with both hands.

But are they really that good?

[rby]

Instead, the accusations are deeply related to the mess the altcoin world has become in the last years, mostly since the "ICO craze" of 2017/18. More than 95% of all altcoins, I would estimate 98-99%, are managed in a completely centralized way, with a team in charge of everything collecting large profits.

I agree with half of what you said above; I don't think the ICO mania had anything to do with the SEC's current scrutiny of crypto.  I think disasters like FTX and all the other collapses that caused a lot of people to lose a lot of money caught the attention of regulators (though the SEC does seem to have its eyes on staking coins and the like). 

I understand that SEC is not after bitcoin as the OP had opined and therefore we shouldn't worry because they are after shaddy shitcoins and maybe ICOs and CEXes who are highly unregulated. Remembering the incident of FTX, it could actually be the reason SEC suddenly remembered the crypto industry.

But then I have my fears. Whether or not SEC is targeting bitcoin, I am concerned that if SEC wins this battle, their next step is to increase domination. It is not bitcoin today doesn't guarantee that it cannot be bitcoin tomorrow. The whole drama is becoming worrisome and its effect is heavily felt on the general market and not only on the altcoins. We have suffered the bear market for a long time, SEC should allow the market rest.

[cabron]

The loss of one shitcoin like XRP is actually the loss of most cryptocurrencies that's been around for more than 10 years. Gensler is not your friend and certainly not a friend of BTC maximalists either. We'd all be surprised by what we don't know behind his facade.

It's about centralized shitcoins that Genler once shill like Algorand and then there's Prometheum that nobody knows about yet had registered to SEC?
Prometheum has a centralized chain also.  Genslar had been the leech in this industry for a long time even in the start of FTX.

[teosanru]

I'm tired to read all the comments in the vein of "the SEC is threatening the crypto world" or "the SEC wants Bitcoin to stay small".  

The SEC's action against Coinbase and Binance has quite clear accusations: these exchanges allowed trading of securities without being authorized to do so. And they offered services like "staking" which are quite similar to bank products and thus also need authorization.

Is any of these accusations related to Bitcoin? No. The SEC has already clarified that Bitcoin is not a security. So the accusations have nothing to do with Bitcoin.

Instead, the accusations are deeply related to the mess the altcoin world has become in the last years, mostly since the "ICO craze" of 2017/18. More than 95% of all altcoins, I would estimate 98-99%, are managed in a completely centralized way, with a team in charge of everything collecting large profits. The most notorious example are the premines. These businesses create coins out of thin air - just a "bug" of the fiat world many Bitcoiners want to "fix" - to pay for marketing, bounties and shills with tokens. These tokens and coins are ... securities.

You don't have to be even a Bitcoin maximalist - I tolerate altcoins with decentralized components and ICOs which are clearly focused on a non-crypto product - to see that these developments have nothing to do with Satoshi's ideal of a decentralized peer to peer cash.

So let's calm down. This is not against Bitcoin. It's against shady business models where companies pretend they are decentralized but aren't, and want a cheaper and less consumer-protecting way to finance their businesses (or directly run away with your money). And it's also about crypto exchanges pretending they aren't banks - but they are, as long as they offer products like so-called "staking" (which nothing has to do with real proof-of-stake).

It brings me hope that Bitcoin seems to be the least affected by the last price drop after the SEC accusations. People seem to begin to understand

Obviously yes it you see the general sentiment of the crypto community, mostly all of them are in favour whatever SEC has done. Even though this might ene up with these big currencies being correct yet this will be good for overall moderation of the crypto community. This will ensure all the shitcoins are now aware of that fact that SEC can come anytime to hammer your activities. And obviously as you said the best part is that bitcoin is not that severally impacted with all this.

[flyingcarpet]

I'm tired to read all the comments in the vein of "the SEC is threatening the crypto world" or "the SEC wants Bitcoin to stay small".  

The SEC's action against Coinbase and Binance has quite clear accusations: these exchanges allowed trading of securities without being authorized to do so. And they offered services like "staking" which are quite similar to bank products and thus also need authorization.

Is any of these accusations related to Bitcoin? No. The SEC has already clarified that Bitcoin is not a security. So the accusations have nothing to do with Bitcoin.

Instead, the accusations are deeply related to the mess the altcoin world has become in the last years, mostly since the "ICO craze" of 2017/18. More than 95% of all altcoins, I would estimate 98-99%, are managed in a completely centralized way, with a team in charge of everything collecting large profits. The most notorious example are the premines. These businesses create coins out of thin air - just a "bug" of the fiat world many Bitcoiners want to "fix" - to pay for marketing, bounties and shills with tokens. These tokens and coins are ... securities.

You don't have to be even a Bitcoin maximalist - I tolerate altcoins with decentralized components and ICOs which are clearly focused on a non-crypto product - to see that these developments have nothing to do with Satoshi's ideal of a decentralized peer to peer cash.

So let's calm down. This is not against Bitcoin. It's against shady business models where companies pretend they are decentralized but aren't, and want a cheaper and less consumer-protecting way to finance their businesses (or directly run away with your money). And it's also about crypto exchanges pretending they aren't banks - but they are, as long as they offer products like so-called "staking" (which nothing has to do with real proof-of-stake).

It brings me hope that Bitcoin seems to be the least affected by the last price drop after the SEC accusations. People seem to begin to understand

Yes, it's not about bitcoin and I'm happy with that. However, the point I criticize is that it is not a coincidence that all these cases came to light while the halving was so close. Their intentions may be good, but the timing is wrong. The fact that this timing is wrong also causes us to question goodwill. Otherwise, with the price shown by Bitcoin, it became clear that the issue is not about bitcoin. Many people are now conscious of such issues and do not sell their bitcoins. What I am glad is that these conscious people are not selling their bitcoins because of these lawsuits.

Control is of course necessary. I'm not against audits, maybe they will make the crypto market better, but what I'm stuck with is the timing of these lawsuits.

[d5000]

I don't think the ICO mania had anything to do with the SEC's current scrutiny of crypto.  I think disasters like FTX and all the other collapses that caused a lot of people to lose a lot of money caught the attention of regulators (though the SEC does seem to have its eyes on staking coins and the like).

Yes, of course the causality is a bit more complicated. But the ICO mania led to the problems with centralization and security-like business models in the altcoin sector. I don't know which was the first exchange offering "staking" - if I remember right it was first a service for holders of PoS coins, but it got quickly out of control, being offered even for Bitcoin.

And there, for me, is the indirect causality between the ICO mania and the current SEC action. Imo you're right that FTX was the main trigger, but FTX had offered all the "bad things" which had become commonplace after the ICO mania: an own token, staking and "pseudo-DeFi".

These actions against exchanges on the part of the SEC are ridiculous, though.  They're not giving any guidelines on what's what, and they're just bringing charges against businesses trying to do the right thing (but not knowing exactly what the right thing is).  Leave it to an alphabet agency to fuck things up big time.

I agree partly with you that transparency and rationality is a bit lacking in the SEC action. I prefer, in reality, the way the European Union handled the topic, with a transparent regulation (Markets in Crypto-Assets or MiCa) targeting exchange transparency/solvency and security-like business models in the altcoin sector -- which are not prohibited but they have to follow transparency guidelines (a standarized whitepaper) to offer their coins in the EU, from 2024 on. But I think in general the SEC action regarding "staking" services (like in the Coinbase lawsuit) and "securities" is understandable.

At least Binance seems to have reached a first agreement with the SEC, so the biggest danger (Binance blowing up as a consequence of the SEC action) seems to be more distant now.

[hatshepsut93]

and want a cheaper and less consumer-protecting way to finance their businesses (or directly run away with your money)

Nearly all crypto projects are about running away with investors money, they do it because it's perfectly legal to do. There is no contract between an investor and the developer, like in real life projects. People buy Bitcoin or Ethereum, which is not illegal, then they use them to buy a shitcoin, which is also not illegal, the devs don't work on their project, which is also not illegal. Maybe some galaxy brain lawyers could find a way to build a case against the crypto developers, because it's all a scam from the perspective of the spirit of the law.

[bettercrypto]

I'm tired to read all the comments in the vein of "the SEC is threatening the crypto world" or "the SEC wants Bitcoin to stay small".  

The SEC's action against Coinbase and Binance has quite clear accusations: these exchanges allowed trading of securities without being authorized to do so. And they offered services like "staking" which are quite similar to bank products and thus also need authorization.

Is any of these accusations related to Bitcoin? No. The SEC has already clarified that Bitcoin is not a security. So the accusations have nothing to do with Bitcoin.

Sec war is not against bitcoin,  but the war is against the so many manipulation that goes on in exchanges that claims to be centralized and licensed who aid and abated the development of so many shitcoin and hypes that have become a bad actors in the cryptocurrency industry today.

Some time I wonder how those exchange operates or think,  because being centralized means 100% regulatory compliance, why to operate a subsidiary of those exchange without properly getting the license from the authorities of the region you operate,

The highest effect this crisis between the exchange vs SEC will have on decentralized coin (Bitcoin ) is the short-term impact it will have on the price of Bitcoin but in the long run,  Bitcoin is going to recover in price and move ahead.

But I read an article, this is the link where Davidson says that Gengsler is abusing his position as SEC chair, that's why Davidson made a petition asking Gengler to resign as SEC chair because he is said to be abusive and using the position to harass crypto exchanges.

So, this can be a fight between the SEC not because they see something wrong, which in fact is a shortcoming that is not there in the crypto exchanges, instead the problem is in the SEC itself.

Source: https://cointelegraph.com/news/breaking-us-lawmakers-file-sec-stabilization-act-to-fire-gary-gensler

[dezoel]

Well, that might be something good for those of us who are long-sighted and see the future, but if we see it from a short-term perspective, it will surely affect Bitcoin as well because disturbing exchanges that allow people to buy and sell Bitcoins will surely have some impact on Bitcoin and the overall market, and we have seen that happening, SEC might have clear intentions of removing coins and tokens they consider securities and Bitcoin isn't one according to them, but their approach will hurt Bitcoin too and they know it.

Also, even if they don't consider Bitcoin a security and aren't fighting directly against it, I'm pretty sure that they don't want Bitcoin to prosper as well because what they basically want is no decentralization at any level, and Bitcoin is decentralized to its core which won't be a good thing for them in the long-run.