SEC vs Ether: crypto strikes back

The US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) seems to have noticed Ether.

In March, several companies associated with Ethereum received requests for information from the SEC. The experts immediately assumed that the Commission was going to file claims for illegal trading in securities. This is standard wording suggesting that the asset (in this case Ether) is a security.

Frankly, such a demarche of the SEC was expected. Commissioner Gary Gensler has repeatedly argued that all cryptocurrencies except Bitcoin are securities. Ether, therefore, was by default classified as a securities, so the attack on Vitalik Buterin’s creation was just a matter of time.

Even Ripple and Coinbase court decisions have not influenced the SEC’s decision.

Had this been the case a year or a year and a half ago, it would certainly have caused serious fluctuations in the course of the crypto. Now, the market has received signals from the SEC completely quietly. On the one hand, this is due to the focus on Bitcoin and its ETF, and with a dash - the practice of successful actions against the Commission decisions. Again, we remember Ripple and Coinbase cases. Of course, if Ether is recognized as a security, hundreds, if not thousands of crypto companies, will be at stake.

The prospects of the SEC in litigation are far from obvious, the defense line is sufficiently well developed. There is a perfectly reasonable question: why does the Commission persist in pressing the crypto company? What is its motivation? The answer is far from obvious. It would seem that a federal American agency should operate within its own powers, in accordance with the law and monitoring the implementation of the law. However, this is an ideal situation. In reality, the SEC is often accused of exceeding its authority. The legitimacy of claims regarding the classification of cryptocurrencies as securities is also questionable. We return to the question of the SEC’s motivation.

The key word in the response is "control".

It is the desire to control the crypto business, not the letter of the law, and not even the personal ambitions of managers, that make the SEC act. 

Control of cryptocurrencies is the strategy of the "fiat" elites to maintain their dominant position.

Blockchain, as presented by Satoshi Nakamoto, is fundamentally against the interests of the banking system. Transactions with cryptocurrencies do not need intermediaries in the form of banks. If non-cash fiat currencies can be stored only in bank accounts, which are actually controlled by the bank. The cryptocurrency is stored on a wallet that only you have access to. Banking system losses can be critical. Naturally, the system will resist.

The SEC represents the "fiat" community.

The SEC’s desire for total control is becoming apparent.

Consensys sued the SEC, accusing the commission of attempting to control the future of cryptocurrencies. A rather unexpected, albeit logical, move.

From a practical point of view, the lawsuit is filed in an attempt to prevent an attack on Ethereum. It is difficult to say how successful this attempt will be, but in any case, the process will be interesting.

#SECvsEther #CryptoStrikesBack #RegulationDebate #CryptocurrencyControl #EthereumDefense