Bitcoin Is Not Crypto, The SEC Confirms

[rybako]

The SEC distinguishes Bitcoin from other cryptocurrencies and considers it to be a decentralized digital cash, exempting it from the classification of "security" that applies to many other tokens.

Bitcoin, due to its decentralized nature, market cap, and lack of involvement by its founder, does not fit the criteria of a security according to them.

Strap in boys and girls. Space shuttle launch in T-minus 10 and counting...

Source: https://www.forbes.com/sites/martinrivers/2023/07/31/bitcoin-is-not-crypto-the-sec-confirms/

[1714539786]

1714539786

[1714539786]

1714539786

[1714539786]

1714539786

[1714539786]

1714539786

[1714539786]

1714539786

[Hyphen(-)]

The SEC distinguishes Bitcoin from other cryptocurrencies and considers it to be a decentralized digital cash, exempting it from the classification of "security" that applies to many other tokens.

I am glad they know the difference, so they should let Bitcoin be.

Bitcoin did not need any of the security they applied to other cryptocurrencies because they can not control Bitcoin due its decentralized nature.

Bitcoin, due to its decentralized nature, market cap, and lack of involvement by its founder, does not fit the criteria of a security according to them.

Which criteria again Bitcoin needs to fit in?

Bitcoin has been in existence since 2009 and everything was going well, therefore, I don’t think any news from SEC related to Bitcoin security important to me because I feel it is because they have nothing to do about Bitcoin to make it centralized.

[Makus]

It's a great news the Security and Exchange Commission (SEC) are now seeing Bitcoin for what it is, the fact that Bitcoin has been distinguished from other coins/tokens by the SEC itself shows the word its supreme  and trusted, and this might lead to acceptance of Bitcoin in some Nation.
They went further to tell coinbase to delist other coins and tagged them as securities

[Cuenta Alternativa]

This is not new, Gensler made this clear long ago. Look at this article from more than a year ago:

SEC’s Gensler Reiterates Bitcoin Alone Is a Commodity. Is He Right?

I believe that this distinction is the real one, and that it is in the interest of bitcoiners for it to be so, not squaring with Gensler's view the recent ruling on Ripple, which has been discussed in another forum thread:

SEC appeals XRP ruling

In my opinion, bitcoin is a commodity because it does not depend on a central authority that can issue as many bitcoins as it wants, basically.

[YUriy1991]

The SEC distinguishes Bitcoin from other cryptocurrencies and considers it to be a decentralized digital cash, exempting it from the classification of "security" that applies to many other tokens.

Bitcoin, due to its decentralized nature, market cap, and lack of involvement by its founder, does not fit the criteria of a security according to them.

Strap in boys and girls. Space shuttle launch in T-minus 10 and counting...

Source: https://www.forbes.com/sites/martinrivers/2023/07/31/bitcoin-is-not-crypto-the-sec-confirms/

If I see from the headline the news is interesting. Well, if we look at the contents of the article you submitted, both discuss views on cryptocurrencies and Of course both focus on Bitcoin, where as Bitcoin maximalists believe that BTC is the only cryptocurrency with true value, while the SEC still has concerns about the proliferation of fraudulent cryptocurrencies and exploitative in the market whether BTC will maintain its dominant position in the long term or not as well as in an effort to protect consumers from fraudulent projects, their version (SEC). To me, this still seems reasonable because the crypto market continues to grow and develop over time.

[Nwada001]

I am glad they know the difference, so they should let Bitcoin be.

Let them be, how? I don't think there has been any form of direct attack from the SEC on Bitcoin recently, at least none that I am aware of. Since they don't have a CEO, they can sue and invite someone over to list out the charges that have been made against them. It's just individuals who are holders of Bitcoin that are being attacked, not Bitcoin; the price of Bitcoin just gets affected based on the fuzz they might end up causing with their attack on big names.

Which criteria again Bitcoin needs to fit in?

Digital money. 
Based on their rating, Bitcoin lacks all the features that make it appear to be a security token since it's being calculated based on the involvement of the team behind the project in terms of decision-making. Leaving them with doubt that the team is benefiting largely from their investors in many ways, including exploitation using different methods, which include market manipulation and rug pulling. Those kinds of things can't be done with Bitcoin.
 
It could be seen as digital money by the SEC based on the value and use case people have placed on it, which is major as a means of exchange, and it can cover up all kinds of financial transactions.

[goldkingcoiner]

The SEC distinguishes Bitcoin from other cryptocurrencies and considers it to be a decentralized digital cash, exempting it from the classification of "security" that applies to many other tokens.

Bitcoin, due to its decentralized nature, market cap, and lack of involvement by its founder, does not fit the criteria of a security according to them.

Strap in boys and girls. Space shuttle launch in T-minus 10 and counting...

Source: https://www.forbes.com/sites/martinrivers/2023/07/31/bitcoin-is-not-crypto-the-sec-confirms/

Institutional investors have been treating Bitcoin as if it was never considered to be a security for a long time now. But I am pleasantly surprised that the US Government admitted they can't get a regulational grip around Bitcoin. And look at that, they even listed the reasons... I do not expect this news to pump Bitcoin all too much, but what does this mean for the future of Bitcoin ETFs? Are we seeing the SEC giving everyone the go-ahead on a Bitcoin ETF? Because that could very well pump Bitcoin past the moon and towards mars.

[Faisal2202]

The SEC distinguishes Bitcoin from other cryptocurrencies and considers it to be a decentralized digital cash, exempting it from the classification of "security" that applies to many other tokens.

Bitcoin, due to its decentralized nature, market cap, and lack of involvement by its founder, does not fit the criteria of a security according to them.

Strap in boys and girls. Space shuttle launch in T-minus 10 and counting...

Haha, You are counting T-minus 10 as you are on time. You just heard the news and decided to post it here without knowing that this news has already been shared here. So, i think someone else's rocket is already launched and BTC hit 29,900$ just today morning. And now coming back to earth. hehe.

And your title seems a little bit off because Bitcoin is not the only coin which they had declared as not a security there are other 4 tokens too exists which are crypto but not security. But, i like your optimism toward this news. All i am seeing is BTC is just cooking right now and once the time will come it will blow.

[Upgrade00]

Security =/= Crypto

Not being a security does not mean it's not a crypto. Bitcoin is a crypto cause it is decentralized but not a security so it's not directly regulated by the SEC.

Bitcoin, due to its decentralized nature, market cap, and lack of involvement by its founder, does not fit the criteria of a security according to them.

These are not the main factors that distinguishes Bitcoin from securities.
A security is an asset which tries to raise capital in exchange such as when a new token runs an IDO or ICO.

[Jawhead999]

Bitcoin is a cryptocurrency.
Bitcoin isn't an altcoins.
Bitcoin isn't a security or commodity, but it because most of people use Bitcoin as this one.

If Bitcoin isn't crypto, then it's nothing difference with the centralized fiat because the new innovation in Bitcoin as a decentralized currency is using cryptography.

[mk4]

Re: Bitcoin Is Not Crypto, The SEC Confirms

The SEC never made such claim. I know some people want to put bitcoin in a different category as other cryptocurrencies (rightfully so, because they're made for different purposes), but I doesn't change the fact that bitcoin is indeed a cryptocurrency.

[laurenB7742]

The SEC distinguishes Bitcoin from other cryptocurrencies and considers it to be a decentralized digital cash, exempting it from the classification of "security" that applies to many other tokens.

Bitcoin, due to its decentralized nature, market cap, and lack of involvement by its founder, does not fit the criteria of a security according to them.

Strap in boys and girls. Space shuttle launch in T-minus 10 and counting...

Source: https://www.forbes.com/sites/martinrivers/2023/07/31/bitcoin-is-not-crypto-the-sec-confirms/

I am confused and skeptical about what is happening, because the SEC is trying to attack the entire crypto industry, but they are always making statements that assert bitcoin is not a security. Is it really that they can't control it, they don't know who the founder is, so they decided to ignore bitcoin? If so will they accept bitcoin and allow us to use bitcoin without any regulation? Is the SEC or the government really that good? This is good news for bitcoin lovers but they can change their minds anytime, so I won't believe what they say.

[yhiaali3]

Bitcoin, due to its decentralized nature, market cap, and lack of involvement by its founder, does not fit the criteria of a security according to them.

Well let them change their standards then according to Bitcoin !!! Perhaps one day All criteria will be made according to Bitcoin.

Basically, these are the reasons they mention "decentralized nature, market cap, and lack of involvement by its founder" These are the same reasons that make users trust Bitcoin and prefer it over fiat.

The SEC nonsense never ends. They make a lot of noise and clamor for or without even a reason, and the funny thing is that every time they fail, if they had some shame, they would stop their failed attempts and stay away from Bitcoin.

[Latviand]

But SEC is just one entity, bitcoin still has to get on the good side of the government and the regulatory commissions in many countries right? I don't know why people still care about what the SEC has to say, it's not like they can a thing about it besides making strict regulations towards bitcoin which I'm sure of isn't going to affect the market for a long time. Can someone tell me more why we should care about this news and does it affect the price in a positive way?

[yudi09]

Re: Bitcoin Is Not Crypto, The SEC Confirms

Your interpretation may differ from the actual interpretation of the contents of the article you share.
It is very clear that Bitcoin is a cryptocurrency that can be used as an investment asset and this Forbes article with the title Bitcoin Is Not Crypto, The SEC Confirms appeared today following the statement by The US Securities and Exchange Commission requesting Coinbase stop trading cryptocurrencies other than Bitcoin which was published on July 31 with the title SEC asked Coinbase to halt trading in everything except bitcoin, CEO says.
The SEC's request to stop trading other than Bitcoin will raise various views from people and one of them comes from Martin Leo Rivers who is named a Contributor in the Forbes article.

Bitcoin is not crypto in my opinion because Bitcoin is a coin that has a clear vision among thousands of altcoin projects.

[SamReomo]

The SEC distinguishes Bitcoin from other cryptocurrencies and considers it to be a decentralized digital cash, exempting it from the classification of "security" that applies to many other tokens.

Well finally SEC got the real idea behind the creation of Bitcoin and that's a really good news. Bitcoin is actually decentralized digital cash but due to many factors it can be used as the best asset to gain profits for the long term. Look the fiat based cash system won't give us a lot of profits because the fiat based currencies can go down in value anytime while the Bitcoin is a sure way to be profitable for those who want to hold it for long periods.

I also agree that other crypto-currencies are only there because of Bitcoin and they don't really have anything special other than the features they have. A currency doesn't get worthy because of its features, but it gets worthy when people find it as a valuable form to trade good with it. Although, I agree that most of the crypto-currencies can be used for the purpose of trading goods but none of them can come close to Bitcoin when the matter is about decentralization.

I hope that SEC and other governmental bodies will soon accept that Bitcoin is the cash of future, and the future economies will be run by Bitcoin or at least they will implement Bitcoin along with the fiat based system. The future of Bitcoin is very bright and those who are aware about Bitcoin will be among the knowledgeable generation of the coming decades. I love Bitcoin and seeing a news like this always makes me happy. I wish that Bitcoin may grow to very high values in future, and more and more businesses should implement it as an acceptable form of payment.

[ImThour]

Bitcoin is not Crypto, we know that for years. Bitcoin is a decentralized currency, that allows you to be your own bank. Don't have to rely on anyone to process a transaction if you can setup your own node to process it for you. SEC understood it now, and what's going to happen? Distinguish Bitcoin from other shitcoins in the market. They will surely accept everything related to Bitcoin and declare it the official currency of the US, if not the world.

[kingvirtus09]

Sometimes you can just laugh here at Sec, because Bitcoin has existed in this business industry for more than a decade, don't say that they just realized that Bitcoin is not crypto. And the cryptocurrency is those who imitate the nature of Bitcoin which is the reason why Bitcoin is more popular and is even happening now especially in the future.
But that's okay and the Sec knows that Bitcoin is very different from other crypto's. Good news for me, nice moved SEC😊

[Aanuoluwatofunmi]

The SEC distinguishes Bitcoin from other cryptocurrencies and considers it to be a decentralized digital cash, exempting it from the classification of "security" that applies to many other tokens.

This reminds me of the similar thread created by bitmover here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5461609.0 the world is getting used to the system and the bitcoin network is more acceptable by many who had thought of it rejection right from the start which begins with the government, but now that they are adopting and are seing the advantage bitcoin could actually bring, they have no option than to voice out and single handedly identify bitcoin from other cryptocurrencies for overall adoption.

[joniboini]

I wonder what crypto actually means for different people. It seems like the writer, the SEC, communities, and so on have different interpretations, allowing them to frame what SEC did according to their point of view. One of the implicit assumptions is that crypto is security as mentioned above, where does this idea come from? I always thought crypto was just a digital asset that used cryptography to secure its blocks. It looks like there is a new narrative that aims to lump crypto and security together from its definition.