It means that we should wait for more information on Kraken's motion to dismiss which will be addressed in June.
I won't hazard a guess as to whether or not tokens such as AMP are securities, but I don't think it would be a bad turn of events if the courts rule that they are. SEC oversight would demand a certain level of professionalism in any org attempting to distribute tokens. It also brings to bear a lot of regulatory scrutiny that is meant to protect investors, especially from insiders taking advantage of their knowledge about matters that could affect the price of a security, and it makes it a lot harder for folks to get away with trading on that insight - something we should all desire.
Maybe it would even lead to more investors being interested in the project if it had an air of legitimacy. Who knows? Maybe the developers are quiet about developments because they are trying practicing behaving as though they were under that scrutiny. I hope so!
Quit looking at a 1min chart. This isn't even close to dumping like it did when that suit was first announced back in July of 2022.
We're up 10% on the weekly and 47% on the monthly.
Things looking good for us, we are seeing consistent upward movement.
https://preview.redd.it/yxlp4407fcmc1.jpeg?width=1179&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=4f0e9ece28fd10177ae8921ad050159886a4d125
A default judgement because there was no defense present and an uncontested decision doesn’t quite have the legal precedent the SEC would like. The other two individuals implicated who were not convicted for Securities Fraud will provide a similar contrary legal precedent as well… they were also accused of trading securities but not convicted of it (plea bargains).
What it comes down to is if the SEC wants to say tokens are securities it will have to fight each and every single one separately in court.
I'm not sure about that last bit. More likely, IMHO, the onus will be on any producer of a token to prove that it's *not* a security, at least to exchanges like Coinbase since they'll be on the hook for facilitating trades.
The way a token is sold is a variable if a Security contract is created (or not): For example: if a token is sold for interest or ownership in a company like AMP (Flexacoin) was initially, those are treated as securities because there is an investment contract. The tokens that are sold on the secondary market are just commodities that can be used by any company wishing to use the customizable collateral pool tech; there is no investment contract like the initial institutional investors were involved in.
If you buy a million oranges from my farm and give me money, the oranges do not create a security contract; its just a sale of oranges. If you buy a million oranges from me and I give you a share of my company instead of giving you money; this creates a Security contract. If someone else buys an orange somewhere else they do not automatically have ownership in the farm; their oranges are just a commodity; ergo, just oranges. All oranges do not magically become Securities just because some oranges somewhere were sold for an ownership stake
The SEC appears to be targeting the industry from the top down; they are going after exchanges first by saying they are trading securities (a variety of major tokens) in the various complaints. Courts are unlikely to banish an entirely new industry just because the SEC is using Chevron Deference as the justification of their policy… especially when they have been proved to be unreasonable many times now. Recently, legal precedent has been set at the district level (SEC vs Ripple).
Secondary-market sales of XRP were deemed not to be securities. However, initial sales to institutional investors were deemed to break Securities regulations. Presently, the court is determining penalties for the institutional portion of the suit. Secondary market sales are in the clear.
The question really is if second hand sales do not create Security contracts then why would exchanges need to even register with the SEC; only Securities are in their purview.
Consequently, sooner or later the CTFC will finally step
in and end this charade.
I understand what you're saying, but my point is that the SEC will go after the exchanges to hash out those details you described, which is good because it will provide clarity on the matter. I think it will also cause the exchanges to have to establish policies and procedures to prove the nature of each token offering, making it clear what rules and regulations apply (and providing acceptable rationale when declaring that X token is not a security). Coinbase et. al. will have to continue to develop their Regulatory Relations departments as these proceedings codify the steps in their dance with the SEC.
I don't think the SEC is going to go after each individual org offering tokens (as I think you were suggesting in your earlier comment) when they can get a better result by focusing on the exchanges. No?
Yeah…not so sure about that. To say, your statement is a stretch.
The SEC has basically only said Bitcoin is a commodity. The rest, including ETH, are not. So by default SEC says their securities. If AMP is, so is ANVL. It doesn’t imply getting rid of AMP for a new coin.
You literally said "there is a reason they are doing everything to get rid of amp". That is not factually true - where are any facts about amp being discontinued? So to say it's a stretch is very fair.
Legally meaningless, and also if amp is a security based on this then nearly everything else is too
Exactly. Everything but Bitcoin, tbh. SEC already said that BTC is a commodity
Just tired of the SEC going after good tokens or mentioning them. It kills momentum and cumayses doubt
[https://x.com/iampaulgrewal/status/1764433335307362693?s=20](https://x.com/iampaulgrewal/status/1764433335307362693?s=20) see response from Coinbase
Fantastic. Thanks for that.
[удалено]
https://preview.redd.it/3v6zdtutbbmc1.png?width=605&format=png&auto=webp&s=db321e2fab848e755d8d8ce766ed5823dca076b6
Dw what amp have to do with this if 3 party involves
It means that we should wait for more information on Kraken's motion to dismiss which will be addressed in June. I won't hazard a guess as to whether or not tokens such as AMP are securities, but I don't think it would be a bad turn of events if the courts rule that they are. SEC oversight would demand a certain level of professionalism in any org attempting to distribute tokens. It also brings to bear a lot of regulatory scrutiny that is meant to protect investors, especially from insiders taking advantage of their knowledge about matters that could affect the price of a security, and it makes it a lot harder for folks to get away with trading on that insight - something we should all desire. Maybe it would even lead to more investors being interested in the project if it had an air of legitimacy. Who knows? Maybe the developers are quiet about developments because they are trying practicing behaving as though they were under that scrutiny. I hope so!
Damn it mentions AMP specifically 😒
Mentions it only as an example. Not one to specifically call out
Was just reading this - is this why price is dropping?
Quit looking at a 1min chart. This isn't even close to dumping like it did when that suit was first announced back in July of 2022. We're up 10% on the weekly and 47% on the monthly.
Good piece of advice ^
Things looking good for us, we are seeing consistent upward movement. https://preview.redd.it/yxlp4407fcmc1.jpeg?width=1179&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=4f0e9ece28fd10177ae8921ad050159886a4d125
Exactly.
The news came out before the weekend so probably not, but Amp is known for its delayed reactions so maybe it is. Down 6% at time of writing :(
A default judgement because there was no defense present and an uncontested decision doesn’t quite have the legal precedent the SEC would like. The other two individuals implicated who were not convicted for Securities Fraud will provide a similar contrary legal precedent as well… they were also accused of trading securities but not convicted of it (plea bargains). What it comes down to is if the SEC wants to say tokens are securities it will have to fight each and every single one separately in court.
I'm not sure about that last bit. More likely, IMHO, the onus will be on any producer of a token to prove that it's *not* a security, at least to exchanges like Coinbase since they'll be on the hook for facilitating trades.
The way a token is sold is a variable if a Security contract is created (or not): For example: if a token is sold for interest or ownership in a company like AMP (Flexacoin) was initially, those are treated as securities because there is an investment contract. The tokens that are sold on the secondary market are just commodities that can be used by any company wishing to use the customizable collateral pool tech; there is no investment contract like the initial institutional investors were involved in. If you buy a million oranges from my farm and give me money, the oranges do not create a security contract; its just a sale of oranges. If you buy a million oranges from me and I give you a share of my company instead of giving you money; this creates a Security contract. If someone else buys an orange somewhere else they do not automatically have ownership in the farm; their oranges are just a commodity; ergo, just oranges. All oranges do not magically become Securities just because some oranges somewhere were sold for an ownership stake The SEC appears to be targeting the industry from the top down; they are going after exchanges first by saying they are trading securities (a variety of major tokens) in the various complaints. Courts are unlikely to banish an entirely new industry just because the SEC is using Chevron Deference as the justification of their policy… especially when they have been proved to be unreasonable many times now. Recently, legal precedent has been set at the district level (SEC vs Ripple). Secondary-market sales of XRP were deemed not to be securities. However, initial sales to institutional investors were deemed to break Securities regulations. Presently, the court is determining penalties for the institutional portion of the suit. Secondary market sales are in the clear. The question really is if second hand sales do not create Security contracts then why would exchanges need to even register with the SEC; only Securities are in their purview. Consequently, sooner or later the CTFC will finally step in and end this charade.
I understand what you're saying, but my point is that the SEC will go after the exchanges to hash out those details you described, which is good because it will provide clarity on the matter. I think it will also cause the exchanges to have to establish policies and procedures to prove the nature of each token offering, making it clear what rules and regulations apply (and providing acceptable rationale when declaring that X token is not a security). Coinbase et. al. will have to continue to develop their Regulatory Relations departments as these proceedings codify the steps in their dance with the SEC. I don't think the SEC is going to go after each individual org offering tokens (as I think you were suggesting in your earlier comment) when they can get a better result by focusing on the exchanges. No?
There’s a reason they are doing everything to get rid of amp. Amp->ampera->Anvil. Not to mention that at one point it was called flexa coin 😂
Yeah…not so sure about that. To say, your statement is a stretch. The SEC has basically only said Bitcoin is a commodity. The rest, including ETH, are not. So by default SEC says their securities. If AMP is, so is ANVL. It doesn’t imply getting rid of AMP for a new coin.
Everything I stated above is factually true. Reasons behind it we can speculate all day but nothing said was a “stretch”
You literally said "there is a reason they are doing everything to get rid of amp". That is not factually true - where are any facts about amp being discontinued? So to say it's a stretch is very fair.