Slashdot Mirror
Federal Judge Declares Bitcoin a Currency
tlhIngan writes "An East Texas federal judge has concluded that Bitcoin is a currency that can be regulated under American Law. The conclusion came during the trial of Trendon Shavers, who is accused of running the Bitcoin Savings and Trust (BTCST) as a Ponzi scheme. Shavers had argued that since the transactions were all done in Bitcoins, no money changed hands and thus the SEC has no jurisdiction. The judge found that since Bitcoins may be used to purchase goods and services, and more importantly, can be converted to conventional currencies, it is a form of currency (PDF) and investors wishing to invest in the BTCST provided an investment of money, and thus the SEC may regulate such business."
Of course, much better to live and die by the sword... err... Caveat emptor principles?
While there are areas where regulations are silly, this (atleast on the face of it) doesn't seem to be one of those. The accused was running a ponzi scheme. The fact that the currency could be exchanged for real cash puts it in the SEC's realm.
Bitcoin is a currency that can be regulated under American Law
Well, yes. When has the government ever ruled that it lacks the power to regulate something?
The motivation behind Bitcoin wasn't to create a currency that government would choose not to regulate; it was to create one that government could not regulate.
From the tippy-top of the bitcoin.org website:
Bitcoin is an innovative payment network and a new kind of money.
Now, IANAL, but I suspect walking into court with an argument that bitcoin isn't a new kind of money when its creators clearly and demonstrably assert that it is a new kind of money is likely to fail pretty hard.
And yes, I'm well aware of the of the distinction between money and currency. Gold bugs, sufferers of Fed derangement syndrome and others spend a lot of time proselytizing about this stuff. The thing is that the SEC and the courts don't, which is why no one has ever succeeded in evading financial laws by attacking the legitimacy of fiat money.
At least not without an army.
Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
You barter with the intrinsic value of the items. If you need boots and can offer a hat or dinners for them, you do that because you need boots to walk in, and the guy with the boots needs to eat or needs to cover his head.
Currency is a representation of value as an abstract. It's useful because it lets us set prices without having to negotiate barter, or more importantly, to have to produce and carry around things that we believe we could barter.
However, because currency does not have an intrinsic value by itself, it can be manipulated and used in certain ways that are not naturally regulated. In that sense, currency needs some sort of regulation. I don't know how much, and I think it should be as little as required, but I can accept that it may need a lot.
Bitcoin may be backed by some sort of store of abstract value, but it has no intrinsic value on its own. There is nothing you can do with a Bitcoin other than use it to buy something else. In that sense, it is a currency and is nothing like barter.
Shesh.. Not even close on this..
In this case the judge is saying that even though the investors used BitCoin, the activities of the investment where essentially the same as investing dollars so the argument that BitCoin isn't a currency didn't apply. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, acts like a duck and looks like a duck, it's a DUCK.
So.. Even if you make somebody trade in some kind of voucher to invest in your scheme, if you live in the US and are operating in a way that looks the same as something the SEC regulates, you are subject to the regulations.
So the judge is NOT saying BitCoin is a currency, but that the guy was operating an investment scheme that was illegal and is not shielded from the SEC because he used BitCoins.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
*facepalm*
Given Article 1 Section 10 starts with "No state" and follows with a list of prohibited items... there isn't much of an argument.
You are also ignoring Article 1 Section 8 which says (regarding the powers of congress):
So no, gold and silver aren't the only constitutional forms of currency, congress alone has the authority to print (fiat) money as they see fit. If states wish to create their own, then it must have an actual recognized value (ie precious metal) rather than be fiat currency.
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
The ideal zero point neglects that it takes capital to run a business. "Profit" is nothing more than the people who helped fund a business (the stockholders) getting a return on their investment, a return without which they'd not have bought stock and made the business possible.