Crypto as Gambling: The UK government has laid to rest the controversial bill

[EarnOnVictor]

As we know, a panel of the UK House of Common Treasury Committee on May 17 proposed retail cryptocurrency trading and investment to be regulated as gambling as they viewed it as “same risk, same regulatory outcome.” I later threw this on board, and I was encouraged as people overwhelmingly disagree on this.

Since it's a mere proposal, yesterday, the Treasury's Economic Secretary Andrew Griffith blatantly rejected it as he “firmly disagrees” with the stance of the committee.

Some of the considerations of the government are:

1. The controversial proposal could cause conflicts of mandates between the Gambling Commission and Financial regulators.
2. It's odd and a deviation from global recommendations and stance on cryptocurrency trading.

The government however iterated its commitment to crypto regulation, and with the look of things, it would be regulated like other trading assets in the financial market, but with little alteration.

Personally, I don't know why this should be an issue from the beginning as cryptocurrency is an asset which should be treated as such in both payments, trading and investment regulations.

https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/britain-rejects-call-regulate-crypto-gambling-2023-07-20/
https://cointelegraph.com/news/crypto-uk-rejects-regulating-crypto-gambling

[Cryptomultiplier]

Well, it is no news about the regulation. The U.k SEC initially got assent from The King of England, to allow cryptocurrencies be used for payments and as it has always been used, but it has to be regulated.

I see it as a better option, compared to Kuwait's government which just banned the use of anything cryptocurrency. I don't need to hammer on the penalty anyone found would have to face. Their reason is simply that it is being used for money laundering. The country is doing well economically compared to other Arab countries in the region.

Although the idea of cryptocurrency is to operate on a decentralized network, the major challenge it faces now, is that of regulation.
Most countries are indifferent about it and have adopted it like El Salvador, some simply want to restrict it, to tax it, to gain from it, others just want to stop it because criminal minds use it to launder money.
Whatever be the reasons, am sure we will get to know how well the regulation has been effective.

[DooMAD]

Given that the British government have, on not just one but two separate occasions, proposed banning end-to-end encryption, I tend not to pay much attention to anything they say about regulating technology.  They're clearly imbeciles.  It's safe to assume that whatever they come up with will be completely wrong and everyone will just ignore it and do whatever they want anyway.  Most major exchanges don't have a licence to operate in the UK, but people still use them.  If crypto companies operate abroad and don't register with the FCA, then the FCA seemingly can't touch them.  Regulation is practically meaningless unless you run a UK-based business.

[Captain Corporate]

This is quite good result, I mean it has very little to do with gambling and a lot more common deal with traders in the fiat world. If they really want to take a look at how they should approach people who trade, they should take a look at people who trade stocks and meddle with forex and all that, it would show them the type of thing we are doing here, the thing we are trading changes of course, its not stocks but bitcoin, but its the same logic. So if they want to put a rule or regulation or law, they could use that as guideline to make one. It would be pretty similar, and people would pay taxes just like they do when they make a profit from a stock trade as well.

[Sandra_hakeem]

I keep saying that these saboteurs will always wanna vandalize what they don't have control on... Isn't this exactly a turnoff for the very fact that KYCs aren't divulging enough?? And that the system isn't really pronned to Thier inner surveillance? Cus, I mean y'all know as much as they do that crypto's been striving for YEARS motherfucker ,...years now!! So how come these unanimous policies at this time and era? When I feel crypto shoulda gotten a global recommendation at the time?? Huh??
Look, this is so fuckin' political as I keep saying - they just wanna have few more sanctions on crypto to see that as a liverage to gain dominance.. THE LAST TIME I CHECKED, DECENTRALIZATION CANNOT BE CONTROLLED so that's only a waste of Time.

Sandra 🧑‍🦰

[PX-Z]

Some of the considerations of the government are:

1. The controversial proposal could cause conflicts of mandates between the Gambling Commission and Financial regulators.

Obviously, it's a stupid idea if you will think so, why such a committee exists if that's the kind of thinking they have. :face palm:

Gambling and financial matter like investment/trading are not the same, not the same risks as well, and will need a different regulating body, and different specific regulations. Damn those oldies in the government.

[BIT-BENDER]

Cryptocurrency and gambling has no relationship, what so ever guys. Crypto-currency is more of a digital asset and the fact people use it to trade or people buys it to serve as an investment plan is totally there choice.

In my country there are people with domiciliary account all in the name of trying to hold Dollar or other foreign currency against my local currency. The fact that they make money from this doesn't make Fiat a gambling scheme.

[hatshepsut93]

Personally, I don't know why this should be an issue from the beginning as cryptocurrency is an asset which should be treated as such in both payments, trading and investment regulations.

Crypto isn't really an asset, its value doesn't come from some uses, it only comes from speculative trading. So it's better described as an investment game, similar to HYIPs, which are generally viewed as scams.

The rule of thumb should be that if a coin has no real users and only investors, then it's not an asset, only a speculative vehicle.

[qwertyup23]

Well, it is no news about the regulation. The U.k SEC initially got assent from The King of England, to allow cryptocurrencies be used for payments and as it has always been used, but it has to be regulated.

I see it as a better option, compared to Kuwait's government which just banned the use of anything cryptocurrency. I don't need to hammer on the penalty anyone found would have to face. Their reason is simply that it is being used for money laundering. The country is doing well economically compared to other Arab countries in the region.

The only fear that I assume is the extent of regulatory powers the UK has given the government. Since the UK classified it as the same as gambling, I do think that strict adherence to its mandate is necessary and there also may be penalties/punishments present in this situation.

What I also fear is that if the regulation is too strict, it may become too restrictive to the point that it absolutely defeats the purpose of using cryptocurrencies at all. Well, however, it is still a bill and we all know that once it reaches the Congress, such bill would be massacred and changes would be made. Just hoping for the best for UK!

[Dr.Bitcoin_Strange]

We are all humans, and the way we are all designed, we don't reason the same way. Things that seem appealing to us might really look like a threat to another person. The reason why I am saying this is because, for example, three people can be crypto investors, but there is likely a possibility that only one among them can become successful in crypto investment, and the reason could be that they all pictured crypto differently; the one among them who sees it as gambling would likely not have much interest in learning how to manage risk and what coins not to invest in to avoid loss. Perhaps why would anyone treat crypto as gambling? It will only be a thing of gambling to those who see it that way; rather than getting to know the ways to archive success with it, they only feel it's luck that can guide them. Crypto can be used for payment across borders, but where on earth is gambling used as a means of transaction?

[Z-tight]

Investing or trading in Altcoins is like gambling , so many of them lack true usefulness, but i think any crypto has to be regulated differently from Gambling. By the way BTC is very different and can't be considered similar to Gambling.

The U.K have been in the news recently because of crypto related matters, they are not sure on how to regulate crypto, and i don't think any regulatory framework they decide on will favor people that use crypto in the U.K and the crypto businesses that are over there.

[tbct_mt2]

Personally, I don't know why this should be an issue from the beginning as cryptocurrency is an asset which should be treated as such in both payments, trading and investment regulations.

They can do whatever they want but to pass the controversial bill, they need time and support. They can pass it but in UK, citizens have their rights and voice, they will fight for it.

I disagree with you that cryptocurrency is an asset as it has more use cases than that. It can be a commodity, can be used for trading, investment or gambling or more. The UK government try to bind cryptocurrency with gambling which is only one of many use cases for it, so they only try to do what they want.

It is not true if we say cryptocurrency can not be used for gambling and I can understand the strict bill from the UK. They will prohibit casino advertisements in Premier League next two years. The new season is a last one we will see casino advertisement, logo at banners, skirts etc.

Premier League clubs set ban on gambling companies advertising shirts

[posi]

Cryptocurrency and gambling has no relationship, what so ever guys. Crypto-currency is more of a digital asset and the fact people use it to trade or people buys it to serve as an investment plan is totally there choice.

In my country there are people with domiciliary account all in the name of trying to hold Dollar or other foreign currency against my local currency. The fact that they make money from this doesn't make Fiat a gambling scheme.

I think the reason people misunderstand between crypto and gambling is because of its volatility as well as the risk of investing in altcoin projects. As we have also witnessed the collapse of exchanges, altcoin projects have been going on for many years, so it is inevitable for those who have not entered the market to be skeptical and misunderstood. It can be said that this big misunderstanding is caused by altcoins, and we cannot deny that investing in altcoins is no different from gambling.

[Slow death]

really it is something simply incomprehensible coming from people with a great level of knowledge (I want to believe that they are in these positions due to their good academic degree), gambling is an unpredictable event in which people know that at the end of the day the house always wins, so everyone knows that by putting 100$ in a casino for example the chances of 100$ being lost are very high, so everyone plays for fun, and no one is making long-term plans with 1 00$, people get it into their heads that the 100$ is lost

now when people put 100$ in bitcoin people know that they can make profits in the long term or in the worst scenario they can lose part of the money due to the drop in the price of bitcoin, but in the long term if they don't sell at a loss they can profit because bitcoin has a certain tendency to be more valued in the long term, just see that every 4 years that pass it tends to have more price increase, so it's an insult to compare gambling with investments in cryptocurrencies, it's something very uncomfortable necessary and absurd ignorance

[joniboini]

I think the reason people misunderstand between crypto and gambling is because of its volatility as well as the risk of investing in altcoin projects.

I guess we can give that leeway if we're talking with the average joe. But I don't think a government body can be that careless and just assume everything is the same thing. Even if they focus on altcoin instead of the Bitcoin market, I don't think it is that hard to see some differences between gambling and their high-risk trading process.

That being said, I think UK in general is more 'friendly' toward crypto from the news I've seen shared on this board for the last months or so. I believe they see potential in regulating the market/crypto for their own benefit instead of outright banning them or deterring people from trading crypto. CMIIW.

[kryptqnick]

I was in the minority who believed that it was actually not such a bad idea, considering that no only is gambling legal in the UK, but there's also zero taxation on gambling winning. I'm sure paying zero taxes on crypto trading would be very attractive to many people. But I do agree it's somewhat odd and could cause issues. But it's not like treating Bitcoin as an asset it without its issues, as it might lead to each transaction having tax implications, whereas that's also unfair because people can and sometimes do use Bitcoin as a currency, as a form of payment.

[blckhawk]

I was in the minority who believed that it was actually not such a bad idea, considering that no only is gambling legal in the UK, but there's also zero taxation on gambling winning. I'm sure paying zero taxes on crypto trading would be very attractive to many people. But I do agree it's somewhat odd and could cause issues. But it's not like treating Bitcoin as an asset it without its issues, as it might lead to each transaction having tax implications, whereas that's also unfair because people can and sometimes do use Bitcoin as a currency, as a form of payment.

But then, there will be loopholes that can exploited if that bill comes to a pass, like money launderers can funnel their money through bitcoin and then altogether avoid taxes since it's considered gambling. Even legal businesses would be getting into this which will cause taxes to fall short and if I recall correctly, people in the UK enjoy an almost free healthcare which I assume comes from taxes and I think that if those taxes were to suffer from these bill, I am sure that healthcare will probably be affected with budget cuts.

[tbct_mt2]

I was in the minority who believed that it was actually not such a bad idea, considering that no only is gambling legal in the UK, but there's also zero taxation on gambling winning. I'm sure paying zero taxes on crypto trading would be very attractive to many people. But I do agree it's somewhat odd and could cause issues. But it's not like treating Bitcoin as an asset it without its issues, as it might lead to each transaction having tax implications, whereas that's also unfair because people can and sometimes do use Bitcoin as a currency, as a form of payment.

So maybe it is a pre pressure step from UK. government to propose and pass a bill about taxation on gambling in future.

If other nations allow gambling and cryptocurrency gambling, UK. government will have problems with their citizens if they completely prohibit those activities. Their citizens have rights to ask for what they can do and their will make many meetings on road to create pressure on their government. I believe the UK. government only want to charge more tax from their citizens and they want to stop grey areas where their citizens can avoid taxation policy.

[Doan9269]

As we know, a panel of the UK House of Common Treasury Committee on May 17 proposed retail cryptocurrency trading and investment to be regulated as gambling as they viewed it as “same risk, same regulatory outcome.” I later threw this on board, and I was encouraged as people overwhelmingly disagree on this.

I know right from onset that even at their wildest dreams, they can't achieve this by any means, there's no way they can paint the bitcoin network black and the true colour will not fish out always, the crime in using fiat is far Higher than we could get with bitcoin, but because they are the ones in control of the monetary policies and handles the financial sectors decision, they wouldn't see printing of fiat without limi is fraudulent itself.

Since it's a mere proposal, yesterday, the Treasury's Economic Secretary Andrew Griffith blatantly rejected it as he “firmly disagrees” with the stance of the committee.

Definitely, not all of them will sleep and head to one direction, they all cannot reason together thesame way, there must be a contradictory opinion from their decision, bitcoin is now getting better and relieved of government threats since we've begin to have among the government officials bitcoin pro, they are there to raise a counter fight against every attack aimed at bitcoin.

[DeathAngel]

Long term, for UK bitcoin investors it’s a good thing that regulation is coming. I believe in the UK though that there is 0% tax on gambling winnings so bitcoin investors residing in the UK may have actually been happy (short term) for bitcoin to be classified as gambling because there would be 0% tax then. Either way though the UK is allowing innovation unlike the SEC’s attitude in the US.