Our experts explained the intricacies of Ripple Labs’ (XRP) important lawsuit for the crypto industry

The court of the Southern District of New York ruled in favor of the blockchain company Ripple Labs in a lawsuit against the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). At the regular hearing, Judge Analisa Torres issued a verdict that no sales or other forms of distribution of XRP tokens issued by the company. As well as sales of these tokens to private investors do not equate to transactions with investment contracts. That is, in fact, tokens are not recognized as securities.

Ownership of tokens, their placement on exchanges, payment with them, algorithmic distribution of coins and other retail transactions are not equated to such transactions. However, the court recognizes as an investment contract transaction the sale of tokens to institutional investors under a preliminary contract.

The XRP exchange rate reacted to the news with an 80% increase in less than a day. The main US exchange regulator has been suing Ripple Labs for several years. On December 22, 2020, the agency accused the company of selling $1.3 billion worth of unregistered securities under the guise of XRP tokens.

Over the years, the SEC’s case against Ripple has become one of the most important proceedings in the crypto industry. In June lawsuits against major crypto exchanges Binance and Coinbase, the commission equated a whole list of crypto assets to securities. The end result of the Ripple case could have serious implications for digital asset rules both in the U.S. and globally.

Why this decision is important

The US SEC’s multi-year lawsuit against Ripple Labs is a significant case because of the fact that its results can be used as a precedent for similar cases. Its results can be used as a precedent for similar cases. At the moment, the SEC alone decides on the status of a particular cryptocurrency. And in doing so, guided by the so-called Howey test.

Given the weight of these events, the immediate course of the process is also important in this situation. And its correct coverage in the media. Often information reaches retail investors in an incomplete or distorted form. This is partly what happened with the so-called victory over the SEC. Which was actually a motion to expedite the case. And the denial of some of the claims and the referral of the case to trial. Of course, the lightning-fast spread of the “news” caused an active rise in the price of XRP and the growth of the entire crypto market. Locally, this event manipulated the growth by bringing back the interest of retail traders.

However, globally, it can indeed be considered a positive decision. It may indirectly indicate that the judge is really getting into the process. And this case will not be considered superficially. This is generally positive for the industry itself, which is obviously experiencing difficulties in the absence of clear. And specific legislation directly for a new type of asset, which is cryptocurrency.

What will happen to other cryptocurrencies

Ripple Labs only partially won the court case. The judge ruled that the XRP token was not a security. But that only applies if it was sold on cryptocurrency exchanges to the general public or “through algorithms” .

The decision is significant because it rejects the SEC’s argument that XRP should be classified as a security. At the same time, the court recognized that Ripple Labs violated the Securities Act. And when it sold XRP to institutional investors. This means that selling the token to hedge funds or venture capital firms was considered a violation of US securities laws.

There is a certain irony in this: now the classification of an asset, its classification as a security, depends not so much on the characteristics of the asset itself. But rather on the characteristics of the investor who bought it. In general, the court’s decision for the crypto industry is quite important and positive.

The fact that the court partially sided with Ripple Labs, suggests that many altcoins, which are the most popular in the cryptocurrencies, are not the only ones. That many altcoins, which were also mentioned in the lawsuit against Coinbase as securities. And would eventually be recognized as cryptocurrencies if their underlying sales took place on public exchanges among the general public or through algorithms.

How the final outcome of the case will affect the crypto market

The final court ruling in favor of Ripple Labs in the case against the SEC could have a big impact on the entire crypto market. And if there is no appeal from the regulator.

The court’s decision could help establish the legal status of cryptocurrencies. And especially in the context of their classification as securities. This will create more clarity and predictability for other cryptocurrency companies and investors.

The court’s decision in the Ripple and SEC case will serve as a precedent for future litigation. Which are related to cryptocurrencies and their compliance with securities laws. If other companies can cite this decision in their cases. This could change the dynamics of cryptocurrency regulation and litigation.

A final favorable outcome for Ripple could impact regulatory policy regarding cryptocurrencies. Regulators may reconsider their approaches to categorizing and regulating cryptocurrency projects. And based on this court ruling. The right actions by the SEC will lead to a favorable environment in the cryptosphere.

Our experts note that this decision may still be subject to appeal. And the final status of the case may take a lot more time. Therefore, it is important to keep an eye on developments and take into account possible changes in the regulatory environment.

The U.S. remains a key market for large blockchain services, including Polygon. But strict regulation of their token circulation is forcing them to find new ways to position their assets and developments

MATIC is a Polygon blockchain token developed by the American company Polygon Labs with an investment of more than $450 million and a valuation of $20 billion. The market capitalization of the token, even after a major price drop, exceeds $6 billion. And the asset itself is in the top ten of CoinMarketCap. Polygon solutions are used by major brands, including Adobe, Starbucks, Mastercard, Reddit, etc.

Faced with the growing consequences of sensational lawsuits by U.S. regulators. Now Polygon Labs has unveiled a concept for the Polygon 2.0 network update package. And among which is an emphasis on the “utility and evolution of the native token.” Interestingly, two days before the announcement, the company released a statement on Twitter. In which it openly emphasized its focus on the market outside of the U.S.

“We are proud of the history of the Polygon network – developed outside the US, deployed outside the US, and focused to this day on the global community that supports the network. MATIC was a necessary part of the Polygon technology from Day 1, ensuring that the network would be secure – and remains so to this day,” the company wrote. And while adding that “the market outside the U.S. is the largest in the world.”

In April 2019, when the project was called Matic Network before rebranding to Polygon. At that time, the team held an ICO token sale, raising $5.6 million. Several investment rounds followed. And the main event of which was a closed sale of tokens worth $450 million. American investors participated in the financing of the company. As well as firms such as Galaxy Digital or Seven Seven Six. Polygon says that while they always intended to “make MATIC accessible to a wide range of individuals,” the fundraising “has never been aimed at the United States.”

Polygon 2.0

The announcement of the new network from Polygon Labs also emphasizes. That the initiative belongs to the global community of token holders and developers interested in the development of the project. “Only the community that controls the Polygon protocol has the right to adopt and implement Polygon 2.0 solutions,” the publication states. However, our experts note that Polygon Labs, as the main developer of the protocol, obviously has significant influence over the project. And so the ability of the “community” to manage the development of the network is somehow limited.

According to SEC head Gary Gensler, decentralized finance (DeFi) projects are often not technically very decentralized. And their developers make profits in the same way that traditional businesses do. At some point there is always management or developers present. And sometimes there are investors who can be held accountable on behalf of the project.

“The core development teams of Uniswap, Open Sea, Alchemy and many other major Web3 projects are still based in the United States.” Antonio Giuliano, co-founder of decentralized cryptocurrency exchange dYdX, wrote this. His service runs on smart contracts, which does not involve a centralized intermediary. But behind its development and support is an American company, dYdX Trading, which employs about 50 people.

According to Giuliano, the U.S. has a very proper approach to technology. And all that regulators need to do in the matter of regulating the Web3 sphere is to “at least regard it prudently.”

Gary Gensler said that securities laws helped defeat financial fraud in the 1930s and will help the cryptocurrency industry today

Gary Gensler, head of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), compared the cryptocurrency industry to the American stock market of the 1920s, full of “huckster and fraudsters”.

Speaking at the Piper Sandler Global Exchange & Fintech Conference on June 8, Gensler said that the passage of securities laws in 1933 and 1934 in the United States helped fight stock market scams. These same laws will also help “clean up” the cryptocurrency market.

“With widespread non-compliance with the law, it’s honestly not surprising that we’re seeing a lot of problems in these markets. We’ve seen this story before. It’s reminiscent of what we had in the 1920s before the federal securities laws were introduced. Hucksters, fraudsters, and Ponzi schemes. And the public was lining up in bankruptcy court,” said the SEC Chairman.

The solution, according to Gensler, is for cryptocurrency issuers and trading platforms to comply with securities laws. He said that the laws of the 30s allowed American securities markets to “flourish” for the next 90 years. And today’s “cryptocurrency securities markets” should also benefit from these laws. Therefore, they are no “less worthy of the protection” of those laws.

The SEC argues that most cryptocurrencies fall under the definition of securities. And even if the tokens have additional utility (which the cryptocurrency community cites to deny the regulator’s position). That doesn’t take “cryptocurrency is a security” out of the definition of an investment contract, Gensler said.

He explained that cryptocurrency exchanges must comply with securities laws. And including the requirement to separate “exchange, broker-dealer and clearing functions.” In his view, such separation “helps mitigate conflicts that can arise when such services are combined.”

Our experts note that two days earlier, speaking on CNBC on June 6, Gensler said that cryptocurrencies are essentially unnecessary. In his opinion, digital fiat currencies-the dollar, the euro, and others-are sufficient.

Chief US exchange regulator equates cryptocurrencies with securities according to Howey test criteria list . Which were developed in the middle of the last century and uses this as one of the main arguments

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), , is actively increasing pressure on the cryptocurrency industry. The main U.S. exchange regulator has already filed lawsuits against two major cryptocurrency exchanges. The agency is making a number of allegations against both exchanges. And the main one is the recognition of a number of cryptocurrency assets. Which are traded on the platforms as unregistered securities, falling under the competence of the regulator.

In the lawsuits, the SEC highlighted a list of crypto-assets on both exchanges, which collectively includes 19 coins. And several of them, including Solana (SOL), Cardano (ADA), Polygon (MATIC), Filecoin (FIL), Sandbox (SAND), Decentraland (MANA), Algorand (ALGO), Axie Infinity (AXS), are listed in the charges for both venues.

According to the documents, they all fall under several of the agency’s designated criteria in one way or another. That’s pre-sale or fundraising. As well as promises to improve the project through continuous business development and marketing, the use of social networks to demonstrate the capabilities and benefits of the project.

The SEC uses the criteria of the so-called Howey test. This test, created by a 1946 Supreme Court decision. Which was related to the Florida citrus plantation deals. And is the basis of the SEC’s securities control authority. Which are considered “investment contracts.” And do not fall under familiar categories such as stocks and bonds.

Although the concept originated in the middle of the last century. But the SEC still applies it to actual assets, including cryptocurrencies. Because the U.S. has yet to develop a unified regulatory approach to crypto-assets. And it may be the one that ultimately forms the basis for cryptocurrency regulation.

Florida citrus plantations equated to cryptocurrencies

The Securities Act of 1933 lists financial instruments. Which fall within the definition of a security. And therefore within the scope of SEC regulation. They are stocks, bonds, bills of exchange, security-based swaps and more than a dozen other instruments. The document also cites the term “investment contract,” which arose as a result of a court decision related to the Howey test.

At the time, the SEC sued the W.J. Howey Company and Howey-in-the-Hills Service for selling citrus plantation lots in Florida to the public along with a service contract. Which gave Howey-in-the-Hills the right to lease and own the plots. Howey, with the necessary experience and equipment, remained responsible for growing, harvesting and marketing. The purchasers of the plots received a share of the profits.

Based on this arrangement, the commission accused Howey of offering and selling unregistered securities in violation of the Securities Act. The case went all the way to the Supreme Court. The judge concluded that these transactions clearly belonged to investment contracts under the Act. And introduced the very criteria that became known as the Howey test.

It includes four key elements that must be met to be considered a securities transaction.

1. investment of money. This can be any type of capital, such as cash, checks or current cryptocurrencies.

2. Joint venture. This means that the investor’s income is tied to the success of the entire venture. Not just the success of its individual investments.

3. a reasonable expectation of return. This means that investors must have a reasonable expectation of profit, either through their own efforts or the efforts of others.

4. Profits derived from the efforts of others. This means that investors must rely on the efforts of a promoter or third party to make a profit.

The Howey test is still used to this day by the SEC to determine whether certain financial products are securities. Some examples of assets and transactions that have been found to be securities under the Howey test. Also include initial coin offerings (“ICO”), tokenized assets, and investment contracts.

New guide to applying the Howey test to cryptocurrencies

The SEC has issued guidance on applying the Howey test to cryptocurrencies and other blockchain-based assets. The SEC has stated that many cryptocurrencies and tokenized assets are securities. Because they meet the four elements of the Hoey test.

One high-profile example is the case of the failed Telegram messenger ICO. That’s when Pavel Durov was able to raise a record $1.7 billion on the sale of Gram tokens to qualified investors. In 2019, the SEC filed a lawsuit against Telegram. And in doing so, claiming that Gram tokens are securities. Also that Telegram violated the law by conducting an unregistered sale of assets. In the complaint, the SEC also cited the Howey test. And argued that Gram tokens meet all four criteria of the test.

Another high-profile example is the case surrounding Ripple’s XRP token. In December 2020, the SEC filed a lawsuit against Ripple. In doing so, claiming that XRP is a security and that Ripple violated securities laws by conducting the initial sale of the tokens. And in its complaint, the SEC again cited the Howey test.

How projects try to bypass the Howey citrus test

Focusing on the U.S. market, crypto businesses are forced to consider the Howey test. Now some projects are calling their assets a governance token. Which is used to vote the decentralized autonomous organization (DAO) created under the project. However, such tokens are also traded on cryptocurrency exchanges. And are valued in the billions of dollars, so it remains to be seen. How regulators will behave towards them in the future.

Many projects offer their tokens only outside the US. In doing so, they restrict U.S. users from trading or participating in token giveaways (airdrops). Some blockchain services reach an agreement with the SEC. In doing so, they often pay significant fines if their asset is found to be a security.

Our experts note that Coinbase, meanwhile, intends to defend its position. It filed a countersuit against the SEC. In doing so, intending to obtain clear rules from the regulator for dealing with crypto-assets. The platform has openly stated that it has no plans to delist tokens. Which the SEC considers to be securities and wind down staking services. According to Coinbase, the company has more than $5 billion on its balance sheet to maintain operations. And to pay legal fees.

Cumberland withdrew $46 million in Ethereum, 23 million BUSD and other coins from leading cryptocurrency exchanges

Cumberland, one of the largest cryptocurrency market makers, withdrew about $70 million from Coinbase and Binance exchanges in the last two days. The company took $46 million in Ethereum, 23 million BUSD ($23 million). As well as other coins after it became known that the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) sued the two exchanges.

Cumberland is a subsidiary of Chicago-based trading firm DRW, created in 2014. It provides liquidity on leading centralized and decentralized crypto exchanges.

Cumberland took about 20,000 ETH ($37 million) from the Coinbase exchange and 4.85,000 ETH ($9 million) from Binance, according to analyst service Lookonchain.

In addition to Ethereum, Cumberland withdrew other cryptocurrencies, analysts noted. Among them were tokens Axie Infinity (AXS), Shiba Inu (SHIB), Compound (COMP), Chainlink (LINK), Curve DAO (CRV) and Aave (AAVE).

A week earlier, in late May, Cumberland stopped trading Firecoin (FIL) because the SEC classified the cryptocurrency as a security token. That is, assets that fall under the definition of securities.

A security token is a crypto-asset that represents a certain amount of ownership of something. For example, part of a company. They can be issued by a business or government and serve the same purpose as securities (stocks).

In addition, Nansen data shows that Cumberland has withdrawn more than 23 million BUSD from Binance in the past 24 hours, noted cryptojournalist Colin Wu. The market maker transferred them to Paxos, the company that issued the stablecoin. The firm has been banned from issuing new tokens, but it continues to redeem old ones.

It also became known that Robinhood will review its work with some cryptocurrencies.

Our experts note that Robinhood provides users with access to 18 cryptocurrencies. These include Solana (SOL), Cardano (ADA) and Polygon (MATIC). These have now been called unregistered securities by the SEC in lawsuits against cryptocurrency exchanges.

Our Crypto Upvotes experts analyzed the claims of the regulator and told about their impact and implications for the entire crypto industry

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has filed lawsuits against two of the world’s largest cryptocurrency exchanges – Binance and Coinbase. The regulator is making a number of allegations against both. And the main ones are the recognition of a number of cryptocurrency assets that are traded on the platforms as unregistered securities. Which fall under the jurisdiction of the regulator.

In the June 5 lawsuit against Binance and the June 6 lawsuit against Coinbase, the regulator named several cryptocurrencies as securities:

In the first case they were Solana (SOL), Cardano (ADA), Polygon (MATIC), Filecoin (FIL), Cosmos (ATOM). And Sandbox (SAND), Decentraland (MANA), Algorand (ALGO), Axie Infinity (AXS) and COTI (COTI).

The second added Chiliz (CHZ), Flow (FLOW), Internet Computer (ICP), NEAR Protocol (NEAR). And Voyager VGX (VGX), Dash (DASH) and NEXO (NEXO).

Speaking on CNBC after the Coinbase lawsuit was filed, SEC head Gary Gensler said that cryptocurrencies are essentially unnecessary at all. “We don’t need more digital currency. We already have a digital currency. It’s called the U.S. dollar. It’s called the euro or the yen. They’re all digital now,” the head of the commission said. On Bloomberg, he later advised the cryptosphere to bring its business in line with government policy. Otherwise it risks “falling apart like a house of cards.”

SEC targets seriously and will not back down

The lawsuits have just been filed, and there is no court precedent yet to say how the process will go and what decision will be made. But based on the trend, the SEC is aiming seriously and will not back down.

But respondents (Binance, Coinbase and other companies) can refer to the fact that the regulation does not contain clear criteria for classifying this or that cryptocurrency as a security. And because of that, each company decides for itself which cryptocurrencies to work with and which not.

If there is at least one positive decision in favor of the SEC. In that case, the precedent system will play against exchanges working with the same cryptocurrencies. Binance and Coinbase are not the only companies being sued, the regulator’s website shows. But these two companies are the largest in the world and work with clients from a large number of countries. And that is why there is more interest in them.

This method of regulation shows that the regulator does not want to limit itself by the law, each time solving the issue through the courts. This approach expands its opportunities in relation to specific players in the market. And which contradicts the stability of the civil turnover.

We can expect a large number of lawsuits from the SEC

The new lawsuits are almost a classic SEC claim about trading securities in the absence of registration. In the case of crypto-assets, any level of dispute will require a determination. Whether the crypto-assets traded on the site are securities in terms of U.S. law.

Moving the SEC’s claims to court might be necessary, for example, to give precedent to the recognition of a particular crypto-asset as a security. This would make it easier to prosecute other venues that trade similar crypto-assets in the future.

Our experts note that similar claims were made in April against a number of companies and citizens. Which are related to crypto exchange Bittrex, we can expect a large number of lawsuits against other major crypto exchanges as well. That said, as we can see, the SEC is not limited to U.S. jurisdictions.

Historic event

In the US, there is still no separate legislation for the cryptocurrency industry. The situation is still at the stage of trying to divide influence between the SEC and the CFTC (Commodity Futures Trading Commission). Both agencies would like to have control and influence over the cryptocurrency industry. And so both regularly issue statements along the lines of “all cryptocurrency falls under securities law” or “all cryptocurrency is a commodity”.

As a result of this confrontation, there are still no clear norms for valuation and assignment of assets to a particular class. Whereas in the European Union, a set of rules has already been developed. And even signed a set of rules for crypto-business called Markets in Crypto-Asset (MiCA).

The opposition is interesting and in some ways even historic in the development of the crypto industry. It really is a kind of fateful moment. And that will determine the vector of further development for several years. However, it will not take a week or a month for the situation to develop and the first decision on such a lawsuit will be a precedent.

A wave of repression by U.S. exchange regulators is affecting the companies behind development of decentralized crypto exchanges. Review by Crypto Upvotes experts

The cryptocurrency exchange dYdX, one of the most popular DeFi trading platforms. It is on its way to becoming a fully decentralized project, not the least of which is the policy of the U.S. government. Right now it’s running on a hybrid decentralized model. But in September, developers plan to launch a new version of it. This should help reduce the influence of centralized structures, on which it still has to rely.

The exchange depends at least on the dYdX Trading behind its development and StarkWare’s solutions for scaling trading capabilities on the Ethereum network. In the new version, dYdX will run on the Cosmos blockchain and leverage its own protocols. This is to minimize reliance on centralized links, any of which could potentially be pressured by regulators.

Decentralized finance (DeFi) projects are characterized by the absence of intermediaries for trading or loan transactions in crypto-assets. An automated protocol, the smart contract, plays the role of an intermediary. However, as in the case of dYdX, the development of this protocol is the responsibility of a specific company and team of developers.

Most DeFi projects issue their own tokens, which are traded on cryptocurrency exchanges. After the head of the U.S. SEC Gary Gensler said. that almost all existing crypto-assets are considered securities by the agency, any token issuer potentially falls under the agency’s oversight.

Repressions from the SEC of epic proportions

Speaking to community members during a conference call on March 30. The head of another decentralized exchange, SushiSwap, Jared Gray. Said he “stopped getting inspired” by his work. Gray spoke candidly about his attitude towards American regulators. In particular, he mentioned Senator Elizabeth Warren’s campaign platform, which included a total ban on cryptocurrency transactions in the United States. Politico published an article about Warren, saying in the headline that she was “raising an army against cryptocurrencies.

The week before, Gray revealed that he had received a subpoena from the SEC regarding his involvement with SushiSwap. To fund the impending lawsuit, Gray brought a proposal to the exchange’s existing Decentralized Autonomous Organization (DAO). In it, he proposed setting aside $4 million from the Treasury of the Record to create a “Sushi DAO Legal Defense Fund.”

“This is about an onslaught and retaliation of epic proportions, and it’s only going to get worse,” warned former SEC official John Reed Stark in a commentary for Bloomberg. Stark served as a senior adviser to the agency. And headed the Internet enforcement offices. He observed that regulators initially left market leaders untouched, focusing on easy-to-access projects. But now they’re targeting the big players as well.

What’s already happened this year

Also earlier this year, the SEC sued the cryptocurrency exchange Gemini because its Earn. Which allows users of the site to earn interest from lending their tokens. The service then fined Kraken exchange $30 million, while equating its stacking service with making money from unregistered securities. Later, the agency banned Paxos from issuing the BUSD token. It was second only to Tether’s USDC and Circle’s USDC in terms of capitalization.

In late March, the SEC accused Tron blockchain founder and Huobi exchange co-owner Justin Sun of artificially inflating trading volumes on the exchange. Just the same day, Coinbase received a notice from the SEC. It threatened to sue over a number of tokens and financial products available on this platform.

Full decentralization is needed to save crypto exchanges

Decentralized exchanges are already passing Coinbase in terms of trading volumes. Uniswap reached $71.6 billion in March, according to The Block Research. This is 45% higher than Coinbase’s $49.4 billion in the same month. Among traditional crypto exchanges, Coinbase is second only to Binance in terms of volume.

Summing up the results of the first quarter of this year Coinbase representatives wrote. That the trends on the exchange reflect a larger market. The actions of the SEC and CFTC only underscore the uncertainty surrounding Ethereum and other altcoins.

Referring to the Coinbase situation, in an interview with Bloomberg, dYdX head Antonio Giuliano says. About more and more cryptocompanies refusing to actively engage with regulators in the U.S. against the backdrop of what is happening. His company, dYdX Trading, will continue to work on the protocol after the launch of the new version of the exchange.

According to Giuliano, the network on which the next version of dYdX will run will work with multiple transaction validators. This is to minimize the risks of being banned or censored, to which the centralized mechanism is subject. The exchange will not technically have the ability to reject or censor transactions.

Our experts believe that the final form for everything in DeFi should be complete decentralization !

U.S. exchange regulators are pressing charges against Binance and trying to disconnect it from the U.S. market. Our experts tell us who can take advantage of this situation and what the risks are for Binance and its users

The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) has filed a lawsuit against Binance and its executives. The regulator intends to completely deprive Binance, the largest cryptocurrency exchange of the U.S. market. It also accuses it of facilitating illegal activities and trade manipulation.

The text of the indictment took 74 pages. Citing quotes from internal chats, to which the agency managed to gain access, the service representatives accuse the exchange, its head Changpeng Zhao and former director of compliance Samuel Lim. That they knowingly allowed Americans to trade cryptocurrency derivatives without a license, in flagrant violation of U.S. law. The CFTC also alleges that Binance circumvented money laundering laws (AMLs). And “know your customer” (KYC) rules deliberately helped large U.S. clients circumvent their own compliance procedures.

What are the goals of U.S. regulators ?

The CFTC seeks a complete ban on Binance in the U.S. and return all trading revenues and commissions received from transactions of users from the U.S. Because, in their opinion, they were obtained illegally. The CFTC estimates that in 2019 and 2020, 18 to 20% of Binance’s revenues were generated by “illegal” transactions of U.S. citizens, although no data for later periods are provided. The exchange’s management supposedly turned a blind eye to the violations to maintain its market share in a key jurisdiction.

The document alleges that the exchange offered U.S. residents to trade leveraged futures and options contracts on Bitcoin, Ethereum and Litecoin without registering with the CFTC as a futures commodities trader (FCM). The agency considers these assets to be commodities, which is at odds with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), which considers most crypto assets to be securities.

Our experts point out that different agencies in the U.S. have different views on what is going on. This inconsistency in itself can create more doubts. But lawyers can also use some language against others in their defense strategies. Even if a serious trial were to begin on any of the named charges. Then the investigation itself will require many months of work by lawyers on both sides of the conflict, our Crypto-Upvotes experts say.

Charges are directed at Binance, not a separate division of Binance.US

Binance.US is a separate division of Binance for the U.S. market. This division does not offer derivatives trading and is not mentioned in the complaint. There is a separate legal entity behind the platform, while Binance itself has no registration in the United States. And access to the exchange for American citizens is prohibited. In this case, the representatives of the CFTC precisely put forward charges against “global” Binance. They argument that the exchange falls under the U.S. law, working with local customers.

The CFTC complaint says that Binance not only serviced American users. But also deliberately didn’t take measures to block their accounts. Exchange executives also allegedly advised large institutional customers to move trading accounts to jurisdictions inaccessible to U.S. regulators. And they didn’t officially encourage the use of VPNs to bypass blockades. A spokesman for Radix Trading of Chicago confirmed to The Wall Street Journal that they had been trading on Binance for several years through offshore affiliates and a separate broker. While having legal backing for any cryptocurrency transactions.

The regulator also uncovered several other likely violations based on conversations from internal correspondence in work chats. In addition, the CFTC accused Binance of having about 300 internal trading accounts under its management. Which “directly or indirectly belonged to the head of Binance,” and the exchange failed to disclose their existence amid an anti-insider trading policy. Zhao responded in a statement, calling the allegations “an incomplete statement of facts.” And claims that Binance “under no circumstances” manipulates the market ! And “affiliates’ liquidity work” is under special control.

Who benefits from this?

The lawsuit against Binance is not the first precedent for a confrontation between the CFTC and the crypto business. In October 2020, the agency brought charges against BitMEX and its three founders, Arthur Hayes, Benjamin Delo and Samuel Reed. The exchange actually invented a new format for cryptocurrency derivatives – perpetual futures contracts. And it created an entire market around the instrument, whose popularity quickly led to its appearance on other trading platforms as well. The Commission also accused BitMEX of operating in the U.S. futures market without proper authorization and FCM status.

The case was closed when BitMEX agreed to pay a record $100 million fine for the crypto industry, as well as to forcibly close the accounts of all U.S. customers and implement proper anti-money laundering measures. Hayes and Delo resigned from the company and pleaded guilty. They each paid an additional $10 million fine and were sentenced to two years’ probation.

This ended BitMEX’s influence in the cryptocurrency derivatives market. Which, until August 2019, it controlled nearly 100 percent of. However, her absence led to the rise of other platforms that now dominate this niche. These include Deribit, ByBit, and Binance, which regularly lists perpetual futures on most liquid crypto assets in demand.

Our Crypto Upvotes experts believe that if Binance is forced to reduce its share of this market. ByBit, as the next largest exchange in terms of trading volumes on the futures market, will benefit the most from this. Kraken and Coinbase will be able to pick up the remaining volumes, given that both have the necessary statuses and licenses to operate in the US.

When it comes to the global crypto market, Binance’s role as a player in the U.S. is not as significant compared to other states. Binance.US has tried to increase its share and its weight by buying distressed companies’ assets. Which left the market in 2022, but U.S. authorities prevented Binance from doing so.

What are the risks for exchange users?

Coinbase, Gemini, eToro, Kraken and some other platforms are much more present in the U.S. market than Binance. And also the volume of trades is ahead of its U.S. division. In this regard, leaving Binance from the North American market will not create difficulties for U.S. investors. Which have alternative exchanges, causing less questions from regulators.

For quite a long time Binance has been under the scrutiny of U.S. regulators. Major business media outlets have released several investigations about the internal structure of the exchange’s business. At the same time accusing it of various manipulations or non-transparent practices. The day after the CFTC lawsuit, the British Financial Times spoke about Binance’s longstanding ongoing relationship with China. And at the same time referring to internal documents, which came to the journalists of this edition. A few days before that, the exchange experienced a technical failure due to which it stopped trading for four hours. The cumulative negative events inevitably affected traders’ actions – in less than a week $2.2 billion worth of assets were withdrawn from this exchange.

In the context of the CFTC’s lawsuit, the fact that there is access to the correspondence of Binance employees is alarming. Our experts think that it might be an indirect evidence of an authorized “high-level” surveillance. Which could be due to investigations into very serious allegations. But thanks to the fairly distributed structure of Binance, we do not see any real risks of a complete trading stop or paralyzing difficulties.

The decision to withdraw assets from centralized exchanges depends on each investor’s individual needs and strategy! All investors need to keep in mind that withdrawing tokens to non-custodial wallets in and of themselves can seriously reduce risks of holding cryptocurrencies.

Attack of American regulators on BUSD and what consequences will face Binance from impossibility to issue its own stablecoin. Review by Crypto-Upvotes experts

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has informed Paxos Trust that it plans to sue it for violating investor protection laws. According to the regulator, Binance USD (BUSD), the third most capitalized stablecoin, is the third-largest. This digital asset, which Paxos issues, is an unregistered security. It is not yet known whether the SEC notice specifically relates to the issuance of BUSD, its listing on exchanges, or both.

The New York State Department of Financial Services (NYDFS) has since ordered Paxos to cease issuing new BUSD tokens altogether. In listing the consequences of stopping the issuance of BUSD, Changpeng Zhao, head of the Binance exchange, admitted. That capitalization of this asset will continue to decline and investors will start to switch to other stablecoins.

Risks to other stablecoins are high

News about banning issue of stablecoin Binance USD (BUSD) had a negative impact on the market. But not as much as from the collapsed FTX exchange. The SEC is investigating the Binance exchange. So Paxos is also in target of the regulator and the New York State Department of Financial Services (NYDFS).

The regulator considers BUSD to be an unregistered security. But with that logic, other stablecoins, USDT and USDC, would also be at risk. Most likely, someone wants to get control of Binance. And creating problems not only for the leading exchange, but also for the whole industry. The risks to other Stablecoins are high.

Binance CEO Changpeng Zhao said he will continue to support BUSD for the foreseeable future. The company predicts that customers will switch to other stablecoins. Therefore, the platform will make changes accordingly.

U.S. regulators declare war on stabelcoins

There are no frontiers for U.S. regulators. All it takes is one American citizen using some platform or protocol. For US regulators to consider these protocols as belonging to their jurisdiction. Attack on stablecoin issuers was expected, the SEC has been saying for years that these companies are not transparent enough. And they don’t comply with U.S. banking laws, don’t have the necessary reserves and so on. If SEC attacked a BUSD issuer, it would be wise to get ready for attacks on other stablecoins, especially USDT and USDC. Given USDT’s majority share of stablecoin market. An attack on them is fraught with a serious crisis in cryptocurrency market and subsequent collapse of all coins without exception.

Our experts note that U.S. regulators have openly declared war on at least Binance itself. In a broader sense, this is a continuation of the fight against stablecoins as an element of opposition to the classical financial system on behalf of the Web 3.0 sphere.

This is a global and extremely important event. It should be taken carefully, and you should read the contents of the documents published by the NYDFS regulator about the ban on continuing to issue BUSD. In fact, it means banning BUSD, but it may be followed by a series of lawsuits.

Our experts are sure that Binance was ready for that. And its management will find a legal and reasonable way out of this situation. Further wide usage of BUSD is out of the question. Perhaps, there will be some alternative or solution. The other major exchanges that issue stablecoins should be prepared for an attack and take some action. In fact, war has been declared on all of them.

FTX founder Sam Bankman-Fried, stepped down as CEO. Then unknown hackers hacked FTX crypto exchange and managed to withdraw about $400 million.

Cryptocurrency exchange FTX reported on its Twitter page about the filing for bankruptcy. According to the report, FTX Trading Ltd., Alameda Research and 130 other affiliated companies began voluntary proceedings under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. The procedure will allow the companies to get protection from creditors’ claims during business reorganization and debt restructuring.

At the same time, it was announced that Sam Bankman-Fried is stepping down as CEO of the platform. John Ray III has been appointed as the new CEO.

FTX needs up to $8 billion to save business and customer funds

FTX CEO Bankman-Fried told investors that his company may need up to $8 billion to save the business and customer funds. After Binance’s failure, he continued looking for a solution and sought help from the U.S. cryptocurrency exchange Kraken. As well as to the founder of the blockchain Tron and one of the leaders of the exchange Huobi Justin Sun, but did not achieve positive results.

At the same time, on November 10, it was revealed that Bankman-Fried secretly covered Alameda’s losses with funds from FTX clients. He used for this purpose at least $4 billion from the funds of exchange.

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) launched an investigation into Sam Bankman-Fried. And the Bahamas Securities Commission froze the funds of FTX Digital Markets. This company is the operator of the FTX crypto exchange. Also, stabelcoin issuer Tether blocked 46 million USDT on its wallet.

All FTT token holders cannot expect to receive funds

Because of FTX problems, capitalization of the entire crypto market decreased by 24%. And the panic of investors will further enhance this effect – the flight from cryptocurrencies will continue – warned our expert.

For crypto market, bankruptcy of a major cryptocurrency exchange is a worsening of the investment climate. It is also another blow to authority of crypto-industry.

FTT holders will likely get a chance to lock in their losses at less catastrophic prices. This will happen after a short technical correction, which may occur in coming days. However, forecasts are negative for future of FTT holders and exchange clients as well. A miracle is unlikely to happen, all who could help this exchange refused.

Hackers hacked FTX and withdrew about $400 million

Unknown hackers hacked the crypto exchange FTX and managed to withdraw about $400 million. The hack was confirmed by the exchange’s official Telegram chat.

Chat administrator advised not to visit official FTX website and to delete exchanger’s application, as they may contain Trojans. At the moment, some of lost funds were recovered, and the stolen USDT of $30 million were promptly blocked by Tether issuer.