Slashdot Mirror
Senate Cryptocurrency Hearing Strikes a Cautiously Optimistic Tone (techcrunch.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from TechCrunch: In a hearing today before the Senate Banking Committee, Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Jay Clayton and Commodity Futures Trading Commission Chairman Christopher Giancarlo opened up about what the near-term U.S. regulatory fate of cryptocurrency might look like. In a week of plunging prices and bad news, the hearing struck a tone that coin watchers could reasonably interpret as surprisingly optimistic. Over the course of the open hearing, Clayton and Giancarlo traded testimony over what can be regulated, what should be regulated and how, while offering a broader outlook on the long-term future of virtual currency markets and blockchain tech.
The testimony drew a useful distinction among three pillars of the virtual currency ecosystem (for lack of a better unifying term): cryptocurrencies, "a replacement for dollars;" ICOs, "like a stock offering;" and distributed ledger technologies, or the technical framework generally known as blockchain. Throughout the hearing, on the SEC side, Clayton struck a relatively solemn tone focused on ICO fraud concerns, while the CFTC's Giancarlo came across as genuinely enthusiastic and curious about the emerging market. When asked about the intrinsic value of cryptocurrency, Clayton said: "There are a lot of smart people who think there's something to the value of cryptocurrency and the international exchange and I'm not seeing those benefits manifesting themselves in the market yet. I look at this from the perspective of Main Street investors and they should understand that."
On ICOs as a security: "I believe every ICO I've seen is a security... You can call it a coin but if it functions as a security, it is a security... Those who engage in semantic gymnastics or elaborate re-structuring exercises in an effort to avoid having a coin be a security are squarely in the crosshairs of our enforcement provision."
The testimony drew a useful distinction among three pillars of the virtual currency ecosystem (for lack of a better unifying term): cryptocurrencies, "a replacement for dollars;" ICOs, "like a stock offering;" and distributed ledger technologies, or the technical framework generally known as blockchain. Throughout the hearing, on the SEC side, Clayton struck a relatively solemn tone focused on ICO fraud concerns, while the CFTC's Giancarlo came across as genuinely enthusiastic and curious about the emerging market. When asked about the intrinsic value of cryptocurrency, Clayton said: "There are a lot of smart people who think there's something to the value of cryptocurrency and the international exchange and I'm not seeing those benefits manifesting themselves in the market yet. I look at this from the perspective of Main Street investors and they should understand that."
On ICOs as a security: "I believe every ICO I've seen is a security... You can call it a coin but if it functions as a security, it is a security... Those who engage in semantic gymnastics or elaborate re-structuring exercises in an effort to avoid having a coin be a security are squarely in the crosshairs of our enforcement provision."
I don't think it's a security. I can't go somewhere and pay for my coffee by directly handing over 20 shares of BigCorp. I can go places and pay directly using crypto. I know what he's trying to do, but it should be explicitly recognised as a category in its own right rather than "let's pretend it's a classic security".
It's not surprising at all. They're just waiting to see if cryptocurrencies interfere with what they consider the natural flow of wealth, from the poor to the rich. If cryptocurrencies help the poor, and not the rich, they will fight it every way they can.
Interesting. If it's a security there is already legislation in place to allow the government(s) to regulate it, and as many wise posters have posited, these blockchain coins are presently far too volatile to act as money in day-to-day transactions. Exchanges have historically charged exorbitant fees for buying and selling mined assets in an attempt to combat pricing volatility.
Of course, Bitcoins (and others) have found a niche in the world economy precisely because they are free of government control, banker manipulation, and any regulation. Since there's no shortage of mistrust of governments, everywhere, condemnation by governments could encourage the growth of these digital assets.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
Yep.
What part of "Initial Coin Offering" makes sense to anybody? (apart from the people offering the coins, naturally)
In what way isn't an ICO a scam? There's over 1500 cryptocurrencies now (but only one that makes any sense).
No sig today...
Now that it's about to fade into obscurity again, it's no longer a threat to our economy model.
We can still regulate it in case this dragon ever lifts its head again and endangers our flavor of fiat money.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Buy nuts. You'll be able to eat that shit after nuclear winter.
I put all my savings into bottles of "two buck chuck" wine from TJ's. You can use that as currency (for some things anyway), and as a bonus, it actually goes up in trading value after the nuclear apocalypse.
My basic calculation is, hey, at two dollars for a bottle, it can't go down, can it?
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Sounds like the fix is in and government and their buddies on Wall St.want to kill cryptocurrencies
Well, to be honest, I think the real goal is for Wall St. and their cronies in government to get a piece of the action. Their problem is that they're not profiting enough off this set of scams.
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
Start regulating cryptocurrencies, and soon you'll have to regulate other shady trading schemes, like the stock exchange.
Most of the concept of stock and securities are a scam. You canâ(TM)t generally go to a company and demand they buy their stock back from you unless you own enough share of the company to force the issue. Itâ(TM)s not money or even a promissory note. Itâ(TM)s not even directly associated to the company in the sense that it doesnâ(TM)t actually reflect what the company is actually worth. If a company canâ(TM)t convince people that the stock is worth gambling on, its value can drop and the stock can be delisted leaving the owner of the share with no means of ever getting even that little money back.
Most stock trading as it stands today is speculative based on whether you believe other people will be willing to pay more for a share than you paid or whether you can sell a share and then buy one back for less than you sold it for.
People donâ(TM)t really trade parts of a company. They simply gamble on a unit of nothing in particular.
Investing in a company means that you give money to a company hoping either to achieve a return based on the profits of the company or by investing helping to improve society in a way you will feel in return.
KickStarter is generally investing. The stock market... not so much. Itâ(TM)s just a scam.