• Former SEC attorney John Reed Stark recently suggested that Bitcoin might be considered a security that needs to be registered with the SEC.
• This statement was sparked by a tweet from Ethereum supporter Evan Van Ness, which highlighted how five companies control over 80% of Bitcoin blocks.
• This renewed debate that Bitcoin is not a security and should be viewed as a commodity.
It has recently been suggested by John Reed Stark, the former director of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Office of Internet Enforcement, that Bitcoin may be considered a security and should be registered with the SEC. The suggestion came after a tweet from Evan Van Ness, an Ethereum supporter, highlighted how Antpool, FoundryUSA, f2pool, ViaBTC, and Binance had mined 850 of the previous 1,000 blocks on the Bitcoin network. The data showed that these companies produce more than 80% of all blocks and more than 50% of that output is split between Antpool and FoundryUSA.
This has reignited the debate on whether or not Bitcoin should be treated as a security, or if it should be viewed as a commodity. This debate was further discussed when U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Gary Gensler stated that he believed Bitcoin was a commodity earlier this year. This statement was met by joy from Bitcoin supporters, who were eager to have Bitcoin treated separately from other tokens that had been classified as securities.
The statement from John Reed Stark has once again brought the debate of Bitcoin’s classification to the forefront. While some argue that Bitcoin should be viewed as a security, others are adamant that it should be treated as a commodity. This debate has been ongoing for years, and it does not appear to be ending anytime soon.
The SEC is yet to make a final decision on the matter and until then, the debate will rage on. With the current state of the crypto industry, it is likely that the conversation around Bitcoin’s classification will only become more heated in the future.