>Hurrdurr the only way things should be classified as a security anyway is if they promised returns on investment
Name one ICO that promised a returns on investment. Yet for some reason the SEC says majority of ICOs are securities. Its almost as if their criteria is the ICO itself.
Cucks here still dont get it. If it had an ICO, it's a security.
ICO = SECURITY
If site has any mention of an ICO, it's trying hard to deny that it's an ICO
Whats even funnier are ICOs like ChainLink and RequestNetwork that have "THIS IS NOT A SECURITY" in their whitepaper hahahahahaha
Brainlets actually believed them. Just because the team that wants you to buy their tokens says it is not a security doesnt mean its true.
That would be a bit too easy then. It's just a bunch of wishful thinking from those retards.
I'm sure req never promised returns. But they promised a token burn + being used for purchases or whatever the fuck + eventual staking. They raised money in order to build that.
The SEC could fuck them over if they wanted to.
They are 100% screwed if they reached out to exchanges to get it listed.
But yeah, 99% of ICOs are probably securities. I am sure that shitcoins like req are securities.
I can think of one.. Ambrosus with the masternodes :)
Whats funny is that if they spare ETH since its is "decentralized" despite having an ICO other ICOs will just argue they are just as decentralized.
So clearly the solution to this mess is to just declare eveything that had an ICO to be a security. Then just make coinbase etc regulated exchanges so that ETH can still be traded.
Were they promising appreciation of the token price or just giving you more tokens? Otherwise how is that different from Ethereum's proof of stake. See this is how thing are going to be messy. The only way is to make hosting an ICO the criteria.
Btw it seems 1 out of thousands is a security lmao clearly this isnt the criteria the SEC is going to use.
Good point. But there's still a big difference between an ICO like req and an ICO like ethereum with a swiss foundation.
>Good point. But there's still a big difference between an ICO like req and an ICO like ethereum with a swiss foundation.
Look at this way, they want to stop the ICO mess while not hurting ETH that much. Like i said the only way to do this is to make ETH a security but make it to continue to trade in the US.
All they have to do is to allow coinbase etc to be regulated exchanges that way ETH can continue trading. Look at the recent coinbase announcement its almost as if the SEC tipped them in advance.
Literally nothing will change for ETH no one will get fined etc but of course the SEC will not be able to prevent any panic selling and ICOs liquidating in fear of them not being able to lock in profits. Which means the price will likely tank as well.
In the long run ETH should recover after the panic sellinng and ICOs cashing out. But alts that held ICOs that are not listed in coinbase will likely never ever recover.
I'm assuming GDAX etc will also apply to be a regulated exchange. Binance too if they are smart.
Hello Sir. GDAX is Coinbase Sir. Good Day to you Sir.
How many threads you gonna make about this you cuk?
In eth's case its hawrd to imagine the platform or network failing. They could sanction the foundation, but even dissolving it doesn't stop the network from running.
Other coins are a different story. The SEC could shut down their businesses, making the functionality of the token in serious question.
Its the SEC's fault for letting it get this far, anyway, but it sure seems like they are gearing up for something and the continual message is out to make sure everyone has plenty of time to get out without too much panic/damage
this only affects burger icos and icos that allowed burgers to buy in
Not promised, implied the potential for and was the primary reason for purchase. Also, if it pays dividends, it's a security. If the survival of the coin relies on an independent party doing work (like how chainlink relies on Sergey getting his shit together) it's a security (so any ico that promises a working product that doesn't have one, which is almost every coin that had an ICO)
>They could sanction the foundation, but even dissolving it doesn't stop the network from running.
I think they wont even sanction anyone in ETH. THey just need to declare it a security so that the ICOs will be a security definitely.
is bnb a security?
>is bnb a security?
HAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA tell me does BNB have a purpose without Binance? Too easy it definitely is a security.
In fact even if it did have a purpose it is sitll a security since they held an ICO.
Binance is a security if:
>You earn more by holding/staking it (dividends)
>It was sold before the exchange was online (speculative)
>promise return on investment
AAAAAHHHHHHH ITS OVER FOR BITCONNECT. SELL SELL SELL SELL SELL AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
the criteria is not the ICO, otherwise he would have said ALL.
Like, that piece of information is 100% solid. you know, FOR A FACT, that "having an ICO" does not by itself make something a security.
That is both obvious and indisputable. The fact that you hear it blared about so loudly makes it an obvious LIE intented to get you to make bad market decisions.
Likewise, he also said that CRYPTOCURRENCIES LIKE BITCOIN are NOT securities.
Does it have it's own functional blockchain?
if Yes: it's not a security. period. end of story.
if No: it MAY be a security, if it doesn't increase in value by performing a function (this gets debatable)
The "performing a function" test is what gets sticky, but if it's a cryptocurrency, the verdict is clear: it's not a security. We've known this for years. This is only an issue for all you retards because you don't realize that ERC20 tokens ARE NOT CRYPTOCURRENCIES.
they're fucking scams, ie "unregistered securities". There are exceptions, but if you aren't smart enough to realize the difference between a token and a cryptocurrency, you definitely aren't smart enough to distinguish between a legitimate utility token and an unregistered security.
YOU don't get it. If you seriously came to that conclusion from hearing the SEC chairmain speak, you are brain damaged.