CFTC Says Bitcoin, Ethereum, And Litecoin Are Commodities

Bitcoin, ethereum, and litecoin have been declared commodities by the Commodities Futures Trading Commission (CFTC).

‍

According to the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the CFTC has submitted a complaint against Binance, one of many world's largest cryptocurrency exchanges, stating, "Digital properties that are commodities embody Bitcoin (BTC), Ether (ETH), and Litecoin (LTC)."

‍

In spite of the fact that Litecoin has been referred to as such quite a few instances in the criticism, the fee has made an explicit statement that it is a commodity for the first time.

‍

In 2011, Litecoin made waves as one of the first forks of bitcoin that launched. Its functionality is very similar to bitcoin with the exception that block times are every 2.5 minutes rather than every 10 minutes like bitcoin.

‍

Aside from the other two, Ethereum, out of the three, has been the subject of the most speculation regarding the possibility of it being a safety, especially from those who have criticized it.

‍

There has been a recent statement or implied statement from the chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), Gary Gensler, that all crypto-currencies, other than bitcoin, are safe investments.

‍

In spite of this, the CFTC has also made it clear that bitcoin, ethereum and litecoin will not be viewed as securities, but as commodities, such as commodities.

‍

Since the primary reason they filed the motion was based upon the fact that Binance provides commodities futures that are not regulated by the Commodity Trade Commission, they are challenging Binance because they claim that commodities futures do not require registration. It is crucial for the CFTC to verify that there are, in fact, commodities available for trade at Binance. They are, therefore, defining the classification of these three currencies.

‍

Some argue, nevertheless, that every one of these are in fact currencies or cash, and that is the place of one other US division, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, which is a branch of the FBI.

‍

Even if you are simply dealing with Bitcoin, Ethereum or Litecoin on a platform like Localbitcoins in which you sell a few bitcoins, eth or litecoin, you must register with FinCen as a money transmitter, a foreign currency.

‍

Cryptocurrencies are categorized by the IRS as property, no matter how they are acquired, and with regards to asset reporting for publicly traded firms, these are intangible assets with an indefinite lifespan on the balance sheet of the firm.

‍

This is one of many reasons why regulation has been criticized by the enforcement community, but with the recent reiteration of Ethereum’s status as a commodity, it confirms that a crypto may certainly begin off as a safety, in this instance by way of an Initial Coin Offering (ICO), before becoming a commodity in the future.

‍

Since the CFTC doesn’t have jurisdiction over spot buying and selling of bitcoin, ethereum and litecoin, a business offering just the buying and selling of these cryptocurrencies would not need to register with them, although they must comply with FinCen.

‍

The CFTC will require their registration if, however, they provide futures, options, swaps or other derivatives to US residents, and they must do so as soon as possible.

‍

Binance claims they take all needed measures to prevent access into the exchange by US residents, whereas the CFTC states that 16% of the accounts on Binance's exchange belong to US residents, while Binance insists that they take all necessary measures to prevent access into their exchange by US residents.

‍

The CFTC also points out that Binance itself has no government office and that this is in an attempt to ensure that Binance is not subject to the relevant rules of any jurisdiction in the course of its operation.

‍

The situation is slightly more complicated, however, because Binance began out as an initial coin offering (ICO) and technically it is meant to be owned by all of the BNB token holders around the globe, so the process is still very complicated.

‍

As well as being run by them, they were also expected to run it through a DAO or another related mechanism, which all of these were meant to be entirely different from what you would find in a standard company.

‍

After these six years, Binance as it stands now has pretty much remained the same kind of company it was six years ago. There is a high down group, a CEO, staff, and the DAO part most likely isn't present other than as a semi-legal initiation of Binance at that time.

‍

Therefore, it is the regulator's duty to state that is the law, but it is up to the public to decide whether or not Binance's company design has any innovation, if that is what we will call it, if the laws are outdated and need to be updated, or whether Binance must still conform to the rules despite its current or future construction.

‍

Despite being one of the most important and a reasonably centralized attempt to form and implement this new technology known as DAO, Binance has proven to be a very complicated entity not only to regulators but also to a few of the public, such as Trade Algo, which claims Zhao owns Binance as a whole, however, if Changpeng Zhao clearly follows the terms of that initial public offering, this does not quite make the claim.

‍

As a result, regulators as well as the general public are becoming increasingly aware of the existence of DAOs and what they are and how they fit within the existing regulatory system, in addition to whether or not it needs to be updated to accommodate experimentation and potential innovation, and if it should be modified.

‍

Because Zhao is not doing all this solely for fun, he might incorporate somewhere like FTX or another lax jurisdiction and get it over with. Because he is a member of a group that is doubting if the corporation as a legal form - invented approximately 500 years in the past - can be up to date and innovated in the digital era since at the very least 2016. He does not do so because he belongs to a community that has been asking for the same thing since 2016 onwards.

‍

Binance has a fairly centralized architecture, making it harder for complex and nuanced arguments to be made, and it's also easy to imagine that regulators' response to these complex and nuanced arguments would be something like 'pfff, what?'

‍

We hope, however, that at the very least the crypto community at large understands just what's going on with regard to this so-called 'no HQ' experiment which could be a first in terms of what we're aware of in the crypto community.

‍

This would definitely be a prelude to what's to come once we go from that prelude to the precise DAO's that are being built, refined, and undergone a great deal of experimentation where the corners of cryptocurrency are beginning to be explored.

‍

Due to the fact that the formation of the company will require significant input, their debut has not yet happened but partly as a result of the fact that it is a very hybrid business model in so far as you do need a centralized administration staff, and how the dao-nians will hire and fire them is something that is unsettled.

‍

Despite this, it is nevertheless a very fascinating experiment that Binance is attempting to push forward in some way. That is one of many reasons that Binance has usually gathered support for this space in the earlier days.