Recently the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) played the same cards against LBRY, a decentralized content platform, taking the same actions as those implemented against Ripple. The "sale" of unregistered securities also triggered the same administrative actions.
Addressing this issue is to take into consideration some premises that the SEC has based on all those tokens that enter this branch of technological innovations. These must be ascribed to that referential framework that focuses on being considered "value" and the registration actions that it must have before the commission.
Like RIPPLE, the case of LBRY, for this first instance it can be successful, but with the initial arguments this type of frames is far from over. Although, it is known that the SEC is also working to promote a case in the scenarios of tokens such as Cardano (ADA) or ZCASH (ZEC), even DASH. If there was something specific, the circulation and operations in the North American territory would be practically nil.
Something that represents the advance towards new forms of economic interaction, in the US they are presented with quite a few limitations, and if to this is added the enormous delay that it has in relation to its most fervent competitors, the truth is that the position of the country of the North America is not at all enviable.
Now, with the progress of cases such as LBRY or RIPPLE, the mere existence of an adverse result could mean a lot, beyond a simple withdrawal from the exchanges. It could already begin to foster an unsafe and persecution environment for the development of cryptographic environments, subtracting the opportunity cost that the North American market represents. In the words of John Deaton, attorney representing a group of XRP holders, if "the SEC is successful in its attack, it will assume the authority to regulate and attack all other existing cryptocurrencies. The established precedent becomes the new standard and there will be no digital asset exchanges, developers, providers, ordinary users and retail cryptocurrency holders who are safe. "
Completely true, you do not attack a token or a company, you link to an entire supply chain that revolves around these initiatives. I am not a fan of RIPPLE, but it really is a case that has become emblematic, a simple wrong assessment and the case can be lost and therefore, a chain reaction would be uncovered that would not stop until significantly affecting the cryptographic market.
For extended purposes, the case of Turkey and India against Bitcoin (BTC) make them lose ground in this race towards digitization. I think we are falling into a reversible spiral that at any moment will turn towards a completely favorable direction, for them. Let us consider until recently the example of the Asian giant and its latest update on BTC as an alternative investment instrument.
This phenomenon of legality and intimidation is nothing more than a way to cut the opportunities of those of us who form that mass of crypto users. These types of cases make the SEC's position extremely contradictory, but it is a clear example of realities that leave marks in this emerging market.
The market results to these events have not diminished, there are not enough regulatory arguments to be able to stop this type of event. We are not witnessing a TokenLot or an EtherDelta. These cases are just a line of exchanges that seeks to deepen more now with cryptocurrencies.
Let us not neglect this type of case, the information that is derived in the market, beyond what it may imply, in the case of technology, must be determined by the laws that govern these scenarios. RIPPLE, LBRY and many more in my opinion will be only the beginning of more insisive actions that are expected in the world of cryptos.
I leave the links to several articles on the subject of the SEC and the situation to which I suggest that it be followed up. Links are left at the end of this paragraph.