Quote from: Iyeman on Today at 04:42:13 PM

Quote from: dragonvslinux on Today at 02:41:41 PM

I realise that XRP is the exception to the rule, as they are defending themselves right now which is probably costing SEC a lot of money, hence they are likely trying to avoid directly creating lawsuits against other coins with lots of funds available.

It sounds non sense. If SEC was thinking like that and SEC will not sue binance but the reality said the opposite thing. SEC is now suing binance. As you can see, that binance regularly making very huge profits from its product and it has so much reserved funds even more compared with XRP. Any opinion regarding it?

Yes, maybe I didn't explain the SEC's strategy so well here. As you point out Binance has a lot of funds to defend themselves (likewise with Coinbase). The hope is likely that these exchanges will settle in one way or another, that otherwise accepts the concept that certain altcoins (up to 61 of them) will be considered securities. After all, it's common that the SEC eventually will want to settle on a low figure.

The strategy can otherwise be considered as follows:

1. Target major exchanges claiming A,B,C to Z are securities. This saves issuing 61 individual lawsuits against accused securities, that would cost a lot more money and time. This is the obvious move.
2. Hope that one of these exchanges accepts a deal and settles without going to court, thus acknowledging that certain altcoins are therefore securities, and therefore removing them from platforms.
3. With the settlement, then file lawsuits against said securities, with the accusation that major exchanges have also acknowledged they are securities, so they must be securities.
4. Hope that these altcoins being sued as securities also settle, given the so-called evidence that major exchanges have accepted they are securities, and also due to damaged reputations.

Obviously the main flaw is this logic is thinking that Binance or Coinbase will settle for anything less than a win. It's very likely they will be able to "pool funds" from the accused altcoins for their defence, given it's in the interest of these altcoins to be defended (even if not directly). Therefore it's more likely their legal defence budget will become a bottom pit and will cost the SEC a lot of money in the long-run.

At least overall I don't see either exchange "rolling over" for the SEC, as it would set a precedent that they can't list new altcoins without their explicit approvals, which would be detrimental to their business models. In this sense, the SEC appears to very much be "trying it on" with the accusations of numerous altcoins that are securities, as even if they are, they will struggle to prove it (like with the XRP case).

As for the accusations against Binance, which is considerably different to that of Coinbase (that's solely selling securities related), it's likely they'll settle on the accusation of co-mingling funds and allowing US customers to use their platform, as it's not worth defending if there is enough evidence to support these claims. As for the securities argument/claim, I doubt they'll go down without a fight.