Gary Gensler and the SEC have to be stopped

[RikkiTikki_is_Back]

I have a family member who is a very good artist he creates his art with intentions on selling it.  He typically sales it through a studio or himself, and recently he's gotten into selling his work as an NFT. How in the hell can you say NFT's' might be a security without saying a Rembrandt or Picasso that sold at one of these exclusive art shows might also be a security to?? The XRP case has driven this man batshit crazy. https://www.coindesk.com/policy/2022/10/11/sec-investigating-bored-ape-creator-yuga-labs-over-unregistered-offerings-report/  He seems to be pulling at straws now, throwing shit against the wall and hoping it sticks for a win!! If you're in this space and don't support Ripple against the SEC you're an idiot, even if you have an agenda in this space you're an idiot, because Gensler wants to burn it all down with the exception of BTC and ETH. I'm sure he got a real chuckle out of Cardano Chuck!!

Edited October 11, 2022 by RikkiTikki_is_Back

[peanut56]

     Yes, they seem to be throwing shit at the wall. If crypto was so "dangerous" for the consumer or the economy then it would be stopped and a reasonable person of reasonable intelligence would understand that such a capability is not good for the economy or the people. Instead it seems a few higher ups seized the opportunity to profit off of their personal positions through the ambiguity of a new asset class, and instead of coming up with coherent and robust regulations that would allow for a new technology to flourish they choose a selfish route that protected their own personal interests.

      If they wanted to lay down some sort of foundation for the regulation of a new asset class that is difficult to wrap one's head around then they could always say or start with and go no further than "digital assets whether they are being transferred from peer to peer, business to consumer, bank to bank, or business to business, must follow all current AMC/KCY regulations and must not be transferred as deemed by current sanctions. Regulated as money, since in a way crypto is a derivative of currency or at least on a spot market during transfer of money equal to the rate proposed by the market at that time.

[Montoya]

Didn't he also say something recently about how the shift to proof of stake could mean ETH is now a security? Nothing like constantly moving the goalposts to ensure "investor safety".

[Guest]

5 hours ago, RikkiTikki_is_Back said:

I have a family member who is a very good artist he creates his art with intentions on selling it.  He typically sales it through a studio or himself, and recently he's gotten into selling his work as an NFT. How in the hell can you say NFT's' might be a security without saying a Rembrandt or Picasso that sold at one of these exclusive art shows might also be a security to?? The XRP case has driven this man batshit crazy. https://www.coindesk.com/policy/2022/10/11/sec-investigating-bored-ape-creator-yuga-labs-over-unregistered-offerings-report/  He seems to be pulling at straws now, throwing shit against the wall and hoping it sticks for a win!! If you're in this space and don't support Ripple against the SEC you're an idiot, even if you have an agenda in this space you're an idiot, because Gensler wants to burn it all down with the exception of BTC and ETH. I'm sure he got a real chuckle out of Cardano Chuck!!

Your family member’s artwork sold as NFTs will not be securities. That is original art. It’s not the NFT part that is the problem.

Bored Apes were advertised as valuable, limited, and that they will only increase in value. That value was based on influencers holding them. That’s why they are securities. Very different from your family member’s situation.

Also, you don’t have to register with the SEC until $10M worth, even if they were securities.

Bored Apes IMO were sold as securities per today’s laws by Yuga Labs. It’s pretty clear cut. What is not clear is whether it is still an unregistered sale when I, a holder of a Bored Ape NFT, sell to you. That’s what the  Ripple case is about. 

The Kim Kardashian situation is also clear cut law. It was a political stunt and a waste of tax payer money given the more urgent issues we have with the market structure, I agree. But it is a clear cut case.

Btw, the EU is also currently anticipated to treat certain NFTs as securities. We are unfortunately getting bombarded by propaganda.

[RikkiTikki_is_Back]

1 hour ago, Ripley said:

Your family member’s artwork sold as NFTs will not be securities. That is original art. It’s not the NFT part that is the problem.

Bored Apes were advertised as valuable, limited, and that they will only increase in value. That value was based on influencers holding them. That’s why they are securities. Very different from your family member’s situation.

Also, you don’t have to register with the SEC until $10M worth, even if they were securities.

Bored Apes IMO were sold as securities per today’s laws by Yuga Labs. It’s pretty clear cut. What is not clear is whether it is still an unregistered sale when I, a holder of a Bored Ape NFT, sell to you. That’s what the  Ripple case is about. 

The Kim Kardashian situation is also clear cut law. It was a political stunt and a waste of tax payer money given the more urgent issues we have with the market structure, I agree. But it is a clear cut case.

Btw, the EU is also currently anticipated to treat certain NFTs as securities. We are unfortunately getting bombarded by propaganda.

Thanks for the clarification!