/biz/ - Business & Finance

[Anonymous No.9795245]

>He thinks the SEC will look at thousands of altcoins and judge whether they are decentralized enough to not be a security

Or they could just you know, say that having an ICO at one point means its a security? Which is more likely you deluded faggots?

[Anonymous No.9795288]

fuck

[Anonymous No.9795301]

The latter although there could be an appeal process that legitimate projects might actually take on.

[Anonymous No.9795304]

>tfw American and was ico flipping all last year and will still this one

[Anonymous No.9795309]

>>9795245
Yeah why would anyone think the government would do their job. A broad sweeping ban would fuck everyone so hard that there'd be a supreme court case within a week.

[Anonymous No.9795316]

>>9795245
They said it is case by case.

This fud is for fucking retards.

[Anonymous No.9795318]

Why do I feel like the next time I hear Sergey’s voice it will be in a court of law?

[Anonymous No.9795321]

>>9795301
>The latter although there could be an appeal process that legitimate projects might actually take on.

He thinks thousands of shitcoins wont apply for an appeal process and that the SEC will look at them one by one just to save his bags instead of ignoring them

[Anonymous No.9795323]

>>9795301
What? There are no legitimate projects besides ETH itself.

[Anonymous No.9795327]

>Shitcoin masternode pays out in bitcoin
>Bitcoin isn't a security
>Am smarter than the gummit

[Anonymous No.9795330]

>>9795323
Chainlink is legitimate imo

[Anonymous No.9795332]

>>9795316
>They said it is case by case.
How many shitcoins are there in coinmarketcap? How many new ICOs are going up per day? They are not going to spend that much resources just so that you wont get JUST'd

[Anonymous No.9795351]

>>9795330
LMAO

[Anonymous No.9795374]

>>9795332
Just ones that want to be listed on American exchanges

[Anonymous No.9795394]

>>9795351
Has real customers, doesn’t shill their token, real product coming, tons of useful tools for setting up a node, article after article about how important smart contracts are going to be. What’s your reasoning? The crap people here have made? That’s a terrible barometer for actually evaluating the project.

[Anonymous No.9795396]

>>9795245
>all existing token ICOs are classified as securities
>all future ICOs are considered securities
>all coins (mine-able, not tokens) are classified as foreign currency transactions

if you're looking for a new career, crypto regulation advisers and councils are about to be in high demand

[Anonymous No.9795405]

>>9795374
>Just ones that want to be listed on American exchanges
In other words, every single fucking altcoin am i right? Not happening

[Anonymous No.9795407]

>>9795245

the SEC fud is dumb and recoverable, no matter what the security ruling is, who cares

the real significant to ETH's price is all of the scam ICO's dumping their ETH

[Anonymous No.9795416]

>>9795330
holy shit my retard detector just overheated

[Anonymous No.9795433]

>>9795407
>the real significant to ETH's price is all of the scam ICO's dumping their ETH
1.You agree that majority of the ICOs are securities am i correct?
2. You also agree that scam ICOs dumping their ETH will cause it to tank hard

Now let me ask you this, if you are an ICO which just got declared as a security, wouldnt you lock-in your fucking profits? Not to mention you want to front run the other ICOs thinking the same thing.

It will be a rush to the exit for ICOs holding a lot of ETH. I wouldnt be surprised if EOS starts the massive dump with their ETH stack.

[Anonymous No.9795465]

>>9795394
1) Customers? Who?
2) You can't shill something without a working product.
3) Refer to 2)
4) Even the shittiest shitcoin out there needs useful tools otherwise nobody would bother using them.
5) ROFL articles about smart contracts in general yes, there are a ton, NO articles about Link.
6) My reasoning is: 30 million USD ICO with no product after >6 months.

[Anonymous No.9795466]

Top fucking kek, its funny how altcoiners are rationalizing how their alt would not be declared a security just because the devs wrote in the whitepaper that ITS NOT A SECURITY. How dumb do you have to be?

[Anonymous No.9795482]

>>9795416
You sure it’s not detecting you, mate? You’ve failed to mount a counter argument. I’m not phased by insults from anons on the internet.

[Anonymous No.9795501]

>>9795321
You do realize the SEC's job is processing applications right?
Who do you think reads all the forms and filings businesses need to make?
https://www.sec.gov/edgar.shtml
Holy shit, some people on /biz/ are retarded as fuck

What do you think "regulation" means in regards to the SEC?
It means filing a shit load of forms of which they process, verify and then display to the public.

[Anonymous No.9795520]

>>9795501
>You do realize the SEC's job is processing applications right?
You really think they'll process thousands of altcoins when everyone can just create an ICO out of thin air? Is FuckToken a security? Is RequestNetwork a security. If I make an ICO tomorrow is it a security?

It literally will not end. Its pretty hard to rationalize how this ends well for altcoins in the SHORT term unless you are totally desperate.

[Anonymous No.9795557]

>>9795433

Yes but this was inevitable and one of the downsides to holding ETH since before the securities fud. The scam ICOs are going to dump regardless.

The fact that ETH hasn't tanked since this dumb securities fud started illustrates my point. There won't be any official grandstanding announcement declaring ETH a security. Scam ICOs read the news too and the securities fud is priced in.

[Anonymous No.9795559]

>>9795520
>ou really think they'll process thousands of altcoins when everyone can just create an ICO out of thin air?
Yes, that's their fucking job you retard

[Anonymous No.9795584]

>>9795520
All that a "security" entails is proper filing with the SEC.
So by definition, yes the SEC is stating that it wants to read a shitload of forms from every random altcoin in existence that had an ICO.

[Anonymous No.9795586]

Why do coins that have initial offerings have to be declared securities? In what fucking world is that the relevant metric? How does that even make fucking sense?

[Anonymous No.9795592]

>>9795557
Check the ETH shorts, someone is confident as fuck that ETH will tank. Of course those who FOMO shorted got liquidate due to a short squeeze but the shorts are still extremely high. The last time shorts became that high was during the China exchange ban prior to the BTC bullrun.

The shorts that time made a ton of profit.

https://www.tradingview.com/symbols/ETHUSDSHORTS/

[Anonymous No.9795605]

>>9795584
>So by definition, yes the SEC is stating that it wants to read a shitload of forms from every random altcoin in existence that had an ICO.

Ah the ultimate hopium. The SEC reading thousands of applications from altcoiners that their coin is not a security hahahahahaahahahahahahahh while they are down 90%

[Anonymous No.9795659]

>>9795592

Shorts decreased nearly 25% in a week?

[Anonymous No.9795677]

>All ICOs are American

Imagine being this retarded

[Anonymous No.9795681]

>>9795659
Short squeeze. The original shorts were not that high but people seeing that a large player added shorts FOMOed into shorting ETH. The original number of shorts is still there.

People in r/ethtrader even speculated its Block.One that made the original shorts.

[Anonymous No.9795713]

>>9795332
it won't be retroactive fuckstick. any new ICOs going forward will have to comply with the new rule assuming they want to be traded on an American exchange which is already a tiny fraction of all the tokens out there. this whole thing is a nothing burger.

[Anonymous No.9795737]

>>9795713
hahahahaahhahahaah meanwhile the SEC has been clear that "a lot of the ICOs are securities".

You can bet your ass that a lot = ALL when they make having an ICO as the criteria for a security.

[Anonymous No.9795833]

The only way things should be classified as a security anyway is if they promised returns on investment. The ico argument is just fud.

[Anonymous No.9795845]

>>9795737
Then why haven't they done it yet? Why did they go to the trouble of trying to EDUCATE people on dodgy ICOs that DO IN FACT break the law and not just say ICOS ARE BANNED BITCHES?

[Anonymous No.9795849]

>>9795833
>The only way things should be classified as a security anyway is if they promised returns on investment. The ico argument is just fud.
Name one ICO that promised returns? None. Yet the SEC says majority are securities

[Anonymous No.9795857]

>>9795845
>Then why haven't they done it yet? Why did they go to the trouble of trying to EDUCATE people on dodgy ICOs that DO IN FACT break the law and not just say ICOS ARE BANNED BITCHES?

They are giving time for coinbase et al to be regulated exchanges so ETH can continue trading

[Anonymous No.9795861]

>>9795713
>any new ICOs going forward will have to comply with the new rule assuming they want to be traded on an American exchange

So what happens to Americans who say fuck security laws and buy the foreigner ICOs? I'm sure a Chinaman isn't going to give a fuck about stopping Americans from dumping money into their bambooscam.

[Anonymous No.9795867]

>>9795245
Takes a real retard to not understand the linguistics that were being played there by the SEC head. A REAL TARD.

[Anonymous No.9795925]

>>9795245
Wrong faggot, nope they will just have to either check each alt or alts with have to show they are not a security. You really think the sec will just be all OK all alts that had an ico are securities no matter what, even though many are not classed as so, you cunts are totally retarded and over your bs fud

[Anonymous No.9795963]

>>9795857
The amount of money in this sector is staggering. The amount of court cases they would have if they did a broad sweeping ban is fucking ludicrous. They know they are gonna lose this war if they do something stupid.

[Anonymous No.9795979]

>>9795245
they said they werent changing the rules just to accommodate crypto, so they should look at things case by case

[Anonymous No.9795984]

>>9795309
>>9795867
>>9795925
>>9795963
>hurr durr making my shitcoins into securities is considered banning
>s-sue hiimmmm

hahhaahahahahahahahahahah this is going to end badly for you faggots. they are not banning them just declaring them securities.

but you dont care about that right? you just want your altcoin not to tank

[Anonymous No.9795996]

>>9795984
The SEC doesn't have the man power to face 1000 legal cases of wrongly considering an ICO token as a security.

[Anonymous No.9796005]

>>9795979
>they said they werent changing the rules just to accommodate crypto, so they should look at things case by case
He said that right after it was asked whether being decentralized enough allows you not to be a security despite having had an ICO. Bearish as fuck.

[Anonymous No.9796036]

>>9796005
The SEC doesn't have the legal man power to face 1000 class action cases suing for wrongly labelling a utility token a security and the investors losing money because of it. They know this, which is why they are treading so lightly around the edges right now.

[Anonymous No.9796049]

>>9796005
bullish, unless you think constant PnDs are a good thing

[Anonymous No.9796069]

>>9796036

This. There's a reason Clayton declined to comment on the nature of ETH and other tokens being a security.

[Anonymous No.9796113]

>>9796036
How about class action lawsuits from incorrectly classifying something as not a security?

Ripple is now facing a class action lawsuit from a disgruntled investor claiming that the sale of XRP is the sale of an unregistered security, with a former SEC chair recently appointed to represent Ripple in court.

https://cointelegraph.com/news/sec-chairman-jay-clayton-says-bitcoin-not-a-security-most-icos-likely-are

[Anonymous No.9796184]

>>9796113
>How about class action lawsuits from incorrectly classifying something as not a security?
>a former SEC chair recently appointed to represent Ripple in court
>1 dude who lost $500 vs a former SEC chair
Pretty bullish on this.

[Anonymous No.9796236]

>registered on cayman islands
>didn't sell LINK during ICO to mutts
>chainlink token is blockchain agnostic

[Anonymous No.9796252]

>>9796236
Chainlink will make The SEC obsolete
Screencap this
I'm shorting the sec on 25x on cryptopia rn

[Anonymous No.9796254]

>>9796236
Yep. He'll probably be fine. Burgers that bought might be a different story.

[Anonymous No.9796266]

>>9796184
Where does it say he only lost $500 retard? Strong case against Ripple being a security

[Anonymous No.9796298]

>>9796254
IS THIS FUCKING FUD

WHAT HAPPENS TO MY LINK IF THEY LABEL IT A SECURITY

WILL I BE ABLE TO KEEP AND STAKE IT SOMEHOW?

WILL I GO TO PRISON FOR HOLDING LINK?

WTF

[Anonymous No.9796337]

>people who think any there hear on CNBC isn't already priced in
>people think news from literally last year is going to affect prices today

what a desperate fud attempt. if you fell for this fud you are legit retarded

[Anonymous No.9796344]

>>9796337
See you in a few weeks and -40% down

[Anonymous No.9796349]

>>9796298
no, sergey will

[Anonymous No.9796379]

There's a reason coinbase is becoming a securities exchange and it isnt BTC,LTC or BCH

[Anonymous No.9796388]

>>9796379
>There's a reason coinbase is becoming a securities exchange and it isnt BTC,LTC or BCH
Does it start with a letter E and end with thereum?

[Anonymous No.9796464]

>>9795245
That SEC chairman faggot already announced this yesterday. He just didn't name ETH specifically, so people still have that false glimmer of hope.

[Anonymous No.9796485]

Coinbase to list NXS guaranteed, they will be tired of this security bullshit

[Anonymous No.9796512]

>>9796298
There are very strict rules about who can invest in a security. Potentially, if you have violated those rules (you probably have), when you try to move to fiat or make large purchases with crypto the IRS could attempt to seize your assets.

[Anonymous No.9796528]

>>9795984
You are a absolute brainlet, the sec can't just declare its all securities when many cryptos are not you stupid fuck. And no a security doesn't means it banned but do you even know what a security is you retard. If a ico is clearly not a security it can't be deemed one just because the simple fact it had a ico, please dyor ffs

[Anonymous No.9796542]

>>9796528
Didn't realize the head of the SEC posts here. Thanks for clearing that up. Now we can all rest easy.

[Anonymous No.9796568]

>>9796528
>it can't be deemed one just because the simple fact it had a ico

[Anonymous No.9796579]

>>9796528
If it did an ICO, it's and ICO which means it's a security

[Anonymous No.9796586]

>>9796542
>>9796568
You fud faggots are not getting link or ether any cheaper so fuck off with your bs ok

[Anonymous No.9796608]

>>9795833
>The only way things should be classified as a security anyway is if they promised returns on investment. The ico argument is just fud.

Are you kidding me? Lol the SEC literally fucking announced this.

[Anonymous No.9796623]

>>9796586
You're paranoid (so am I but of something different than you) which is making you think all pessimistic discussion is being posted by people purposefully trying to push the price down. I already have massive Link bags and I'd actually prefer the price not keep dropping, I'm just worried about getting fucked in the ass down the line.

[Anonymous No.9796647]

For what it's worth, the SEC investigation into the DAO doesn't overly focus on the ICO element (although of course, the video clip we've all seen is much newer which is relevant).

"4. Derived from the Managerial Efforts of Others
a. The Efforts of Slock.it, Slock.it’s Co-Founders, and The DAO’s Curators Were Essential to the Enterprise
Investors’ profits were to be derived from the managerial efforts of others—specifically, Slock.it and its co-founders, and The DAO’s Curators. The central issue is “whether the efforts made by those other than the investor are the undeniably significant ones, those essential managerial efforts which affect the failure or success of the enterprise.” SEC v. Glenn W. Turner Enters., Inc., 474 F.2d 476, 482 (9th Cir. 1973). The DAO’s investors relied on the managerial and entrepreneurial efforts of Slock.it and its co-founders, and The DAO’s Curators, to manage The DAO and put forth project proposals that could generate profits for The DAO’s investors."

https://www.sec.gov/litigation/investreport/34-81207.pdf

[Anonymous No.9796679]

>>9796512
IM GONNA FUCKING PUKE WTF

THIS HAD GOT TO BE FUD

WTF SOMEONE EXPLAIN

[Anonymous No.9796728]

This is where it could get complicated legally. Node runners are arguably profiting off both the "managerial efforts" of the team but not solely. Non-node running holders (investors) on the other hand are very clearly depending on the "efforts made by those other that the investor" in order to turn a profit.

[Anonymous No.9796767]

>>9796728
Holy shit, if the investors could prove that they created memes and or FUDing/shilling here on 4chan then perhaps they could argue that they weren't solely profiting off the efforts of third parties.

[Anonymous No.9796768]

>>9796728
SO ITS ILLEGAL TO BUY SHITCOINS NOW UNLESS YOU HAVE 2 MILLION FUCKING DOLLARS?

WTF IS GOING ON AND WHY ARE YOU ALL SO CALM?

[Anonymous No.9796772]

>hmmm
>this new technology doesnt really mesh with our old laws
>better destroy the industry then

[Anonymous No.9796781]

>>9796679
KEK

[Anonymous No.9796850]

>>9795861
They do give a fuck, it will be just like the ICOs banning burger participants. You will be able to trade for other cyber tokens on DEX but you can forget about cashing out to valuable fiat currency as an unaccredited burger

[Anonymous No.9796878]

>>9796768
because no one actually gives a fuck about amerifats and your shit laws. while you get buttfucked and left behind, the rest of the world will still keep ticking.

[Anonymous No.9796891]

>>9796850
What if I become a millionaire though? Will I retroactively become capable of investing in securities?

[Anonymous No.9796951]

>>9796878
>because no one actually gives a fuck about amerifats and your shit laws
If you had insider info that the SEC will declare all altcoins that held ICOs as securities tomorrow will you sell? Of course you will.

Stop rationalizing this. Altcoins will tank when publicly announced to be securities.

[Anonymous No.9796999]

LINK is KILL, it's over stinkies.

[Anonymous No.9797000]

OMG they're going to just take my linkies even if it moons and I have enough to become accredited investor. Or will the let me become one still?

AM I GOING TO PRISON FOR BUYING A SHITCOIN? SOMEONE FUCKING GIVE ME A DETAILED EXPLAINTION IM FUCKING IN THE BATHROOM PUKING IM GONNA GO TO PRISON FOR BUYING SHITCOINS WTF

[Anonymous No.9797018]

>SEC says theyre not changing the definition or creating a new asset
>Crypto czar appointed
>Coinbase gets securities selling approval for ETH selling
>He still hasnt sold

[Anonymous No.9797020]

>>9797000
its ok just buy aenima.io

[Anonymous No.9797029]

>>9796623
Not at all, ok lets say link will be declared a security (which it won't), so what, I am not a burger fag and yes the price will tank but only to come out better in the long run aways, so not really worried one bit

[Anonymous No.9797051]

>>9797000
just buy aenima.io

[Anonymous No.9797062]

20 yo boomer here, whats all the fuss about? Whats a security and why does it matter if a crypto becomes one under the SEC?

[Anonymous No.9797065]

>>9796891
My last post is wrong, maybe unregulated exchanges have to ban burgers, the accredited investor thing is mostly irrelevant aside from ICOs

[Anonymous No.9797083]

>>9797062
Honestly it's looking like mostly FUD from goys who sold the rumor

[Anonymous No.9797093]

>>9797062
ICOs = securities and they first have to register with SEC before they can sell tokens and people interested also have to register for purchase of tokens because they are securities

If you skip this, SEC can seize your assets related to the security purchased

[Anonymous No.9797110]

>>9797093
it's like that guy who sold Bitcoins without a license and his Dad went to Federal prison
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pX7IQ6UOVM

[Anonymous No.9797124]

>>9797110
Wait so it's only for new icos or any coin that ever had one?

[Anonymous No.9797150]

>>9797124
Anything ETH and ETH related

In seriousness, Coinbase actually tried recently to bypass this by purchasing an authorized securities exchange which will allow them to sell the ETH they are selling now. Since they are US based, they may be getting fined now and that explains the urgency to do this.

[Anonymous No.9797157]

>>9797124
and yeah anything with an ICO

[Anonymous No.9797163]

>>9795330
Actually it probably will be legitimate because if it saves corps 20-30% they will lobby it. Anyone who can’t see that is a literal retard.
>MUH SEC
grease palms idiots, plus it’s developed in Cornell. Which makes the US the biggest player.

The SEC fud is to knock out every shit coin that was made in a foreign company and keep a monopoly in the US. How can you retards not think bigger sometimes it’s absolutely astounding.

[Anonymous No.9797182]

anybody comfy with rlx??

>no ico

[Anonymous No.9797191]

>>9797182
Also doesn’t matter. Any coin that passes the SEC will be a legitimate coin. No more vapourware . This whole market is fucked, get fucked moonbois

[Anonymous No.9797227]

>>9797191
yeah but rarely any have actually done the process to go through with SEC and because they would be expected fines for not doing so, they are all scared of the consequences.

The coin developers are pretty much scared to approach SEC now because it's pretty much too late

"Hi SEC, I did a few ICO's a year ago, please let me sell more in US" Isn't going to pass

[Anonymous No.9797333]

>>9797110
Scary

[Anonymous No.9797381]

>>9797227
That’s good. REQ should be a good hold then Y combinator isn’t stupid. Chainlink should be good. We’re going to see a big shift and the death of shit coins .