Your % loss in crypto value for that period is almost exactly the same as mine, even though I didn't have any XRP and "spread my investment" over 4 different cryptocurrencies.
Thankfully my "investment" was low enough to walk away from. It was basically an experiment. Glad I did it. Now I know. Of course my wife told me it was a ponzi scheme from the start, and was completely right. The real combined value of all the crypto in the universe is zero. The market just hasn't corrected itself yet.
It's the dumbest technology to try to buy illegal stuff now. Most coins have touched an exchange and everything you do is public. Once deanonymized, it's the opposite of private.
Monero & Zcash are exceptions and the only parts of crypto I'm bullish about (including some new upcoming chains like Ironfish & Aleo). I think private p2p cash has a lot of value. BTC & ETH are the opposite of private.
It's still useful as a means of transferring money for those in jurisdictions that don't care about their illegal activity. Like the countries that tolerate cybercrime as long as it is directed outside of their own borders. Or dictators themselves trying to avoid sanctions.
It's still useful for now, but it will get less and less so. The tornado cash dev is in jail for writing code that made such efforts easier. Since coins can be marked by "good" actors as having been involved in illegal activity, they can't ever be used again.
Let's say a US company gets ransomware attacked by a Russian national and demands payment in bitcoin. US company pays in bitcoin and later reports crime. All accounts get flagged. Anyone helping that address offramp the money will be in trouble. So there has to be a Russian exchange dealing with Russian banks that's creating a track record of provably aiding in crime. It's either going to be such a small amount no one cares or the Russian companies involved will be sanctioned.
Because of the public permanent record, the utility of ETH and BTC are decreasingly useful. Things like instant international settlement, fast payments, and the alike can always be better done with tradfi. Privacy and avoiding regulation was the only real utility ever.
For now it seems the agencies with the technical expertise to prosecute arnt going after the occasional drug buyers, it's pretty safe. Of course, nothing stopping future better police from taking through old records
Monero & Zcash are the best examples right now but like bitcoin, they are volatile and not practical for actual commerce outside of use-cases (like crime) where it's worth the cost.
Stablecoins are a large use case in crypto now but there isn't a private stablecoin yet (I'm ignoring all SGX based technology). A private stablecoin, fully backed by audited bank reserves would enable something like a private Venmo. This private Venmo would know how much you brought in and took out but would have no idea what your transaction history looks like. I think in the next few years we'll see a private Venmo.
Anything other than a privacy coin isn't anonymous, it's pseudonymous. Carrying out illicit transactions on a public ledger is akin to just sending your transaction history to every investigative service on earth: the FBI, NSA, CIA - and abroad of course, the PRC government. They are now, or will in the future, just run it through automated deanonymization tooling.
To borrow an expression from Nicholas Weaver, crimes on public ledgers are just prosecution futures.
"Your % loss in crypto value for that period is almost exactly the same as mine, even though I didn't have any XRP and "spread my investment" over 4 different cruptocurrencies."
The only cryptocurrency that the SEC has said publicly it will not treat as a security is BTC. There are allegedly a few more but the SEC has not disclosed which ones. That leaves every other one open to SEC regulation.
Above every cryptocurrency, save for a few, hangs the sword of Damocles.
With the ongoing FTX story, it is nice to see people on HN are now able to comfortably confess their crypto losses.
> The only cryptocurrency that the SEC has said publicly it will not treat as a security is BTC
ETH has been addressed as well as not being a considered a security (anymore). This was before the switch to PoS. I have not heard or seen anything indicating that the PoS transition would change this.
> That leaves every other one open to SEC regulation.
Only those that fail the Howey Test, I think.
In doing so, the Supreme Court established four criteria to determine whether an investment contract exists. An investment contract is:
An investment of money
In a common enterprise
With the expectation of profit
To be derived from the efforts of others
"Whether or not a particular transaction involves the offer and sale of a security -- regardless of the terminology used -- will depend on the FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, including the economic realities of the transaction."
"I would like to emphasize that the analysis of whether something is a security is not static and DOES NOT STRICTLY INHERE TO THE INSTRUMENT.[10] Even digital assets with utility that function solely as a means of exchange in a decentralized network could be packaged and sold as an investment strategy that can be a security. If a promoter were to place Bitcoin in a fund or trust and sell interests, it would create a new security. Similarly, investment contracts can be made out of virtually any asset (including virtual assets), provided the investor is reasonably expecting profits from the promoter's efforts."
Further...
"[1] The Securities and Exchange Commission disclaims responsibility for any private publication or statement of any SEC employee or Commissioner. This speech expresses the author's views and does not necessarily reflect those of the Commission, the Commissioners or other members of the staff."
"Your letter also asks whether I agree with certain statements concerning digital tokens in Director Hinman's June 2018 speech. I agree that the analysis of whether a digital asset is offered or sold as a security is not static and does not strictly inhere to the instrument."
"MR. BLISS: So I want to make clear that this is my understanding of the current situation and I don't want to be overly technical but the SEC, itself, my understanding, it has not taken an official position. There is no action that it took to say Bitcoin is not a security, Ether is not a security. Now, there was a speech by a high-ranking person who said that to him that's what it looked like but there has been no action letter, no enforcement action, none of the official ways in which the SEC takes a position on that matter that has occurred. What I understand defendants to be referencing is the speech by Mr. Hinman which is not an official statement of the Securities and Exchange Commission itself."
"11. On June 14, 2018, I delivered a public speech entitled "Digital Asset Transactions: When Howey Met Gary (Plastic)" (the "Speech"). I began the speech with the following disclaimer: "My remarks are mine alone, not necessarily those of the Commission, the Commissioners, or the staff." The text of the Speech, which is publically available on the Commission's website, contains a similar disclaimer: "The Securities and Exchange Commission disclaims responsibility for any private publication or statement of any SEC employee or Commissioner. This speech expresses the author's views and does not necessarily reflect those of the Commission, the Commissioners or other members of the staff.""
"13. The Speech was intended to express my own personal views. During my preparation of the Speech, I discussed my thoughts with other Commission employees, as part of the Commission's ongoing deliberations about whether offers and sales of Ether constituted securities transactions. To the best of my knowledge, the Commission had not taken at that time, and still has not taken, any position or expressed a view as to whether offers and sales of Ether constituted offers and sales of securities."
"We already have robust ways to protect investors trading on platforms. And we have robust ways to protect investors when entrepreneurs want to raise money from the public.
We ought to apply these same protections in the crypto markets. Let's not risk undermining 90 years of securities laws and create some regulatory arbitrage or loopholes."
The quesion no one is willing to ask or answer is: With all their financial and legal resources, why are crypto issuers so reluctant to file registration statements?
Thankfully my "investment" was low enough to walk away from. It was basically an experiment. Glad I did it. Now I know. Of course my wife told me it was a ponzi scheme from the start, and was completely right. The real combined value of all the crypto in the universe is zero. The market just hasn't corrected itself yet.