Re:We asked the SEC for reasonable crypto rules. We got lega...
by TylerE on Thursday March 23, 2023 @03:11AM
(#35271407)
Seems like a fairly clear line can be drawn unambiguously.
If it’s, like Bitcoin, just a number in a ledger, it’s a commodity.
As soon as you attach any specific data to it, like a smart contract or tieing it to a single, tangible object like a painting, or paying rewards to people who bought before a specified time, it’s no longer fungible. It isn’t a commodity.
Re:We asked the SEC for reasonable crypto rules. We got lega...
by pa7x1 on Thursday March 23, 2023 @12:12PM
(#35277019)
Confidently wrong. Par for the course in HN.
Re:We asked the SEC for reasonable crypto rules. We got lega...
by TylerE on Thursday March 23, 2023 @03:13PM
(#35279872)
Such a detailed rebuttal.
Re:We asked the SEC for reasonable crypto rules. We got lega...
by pa7x1 on Thursday March 23, 2023 @04:58PM
(#35281172)
There is nothing to rebut. Your argument has nothing to do with Security's laws or the legal jurisprudence around it. It can be substituted by "if it starts with B like Bitcoin, it's not a Security" which contains exactly the same amount of argumentative power.
It takes significantly more time to construct a rebuttal than to produce a gish gallop of senseless arguments like the one above. So I will simply refer you to this link: https://isethereumasecurity.com/
I’m not sure the rationale (or if it is just an explicit designation), but forex (and some related derivatives) is commodity trading regulated by the CFTC rather than security trading regulated by the SEC. (I think a regulatory problem with cryptocurrency is that it is generally clearly one or the other, but not always clear which, and while the market would like crypto to be one category it is probably a messy split between the two, absent legislation defining it and assigning it as a category.)