If you look up the definitions of "security", "financial instrument", "commodity", and "currency", it is pretty clear that a plain vanilla crypto-currency like Bitcoin is no ordinary security nor a financial instrument. It is not a claim on something else, even less so than a traditional bank note. It is more like a commodity. Since when is "aluminum" a security? A crypto currency business however may be engaged in t…
You're spot on here. The vast majority of cryptocurrencies (modulo a bunch of shittokens) are better described as foreign currencies or commodities, and they should be regulated as such. Unfortunately for the SEC, that implies that they don't have jurisdiction, and that regulatory burden lies with the CFTC. And from my handful of years as a commodities trader, I would much rather have the CFTC involved than the SEC. The SEC is too inconsistent...institutionally they act like a primadonna that is interested in making headlines more than creating effective policy. The CFTC is all business. They're not perfect, but they are damn good at their job, and they are transparent about what they do and how they work, and they don't see enforcement action as a PR move, but rather as a way to ensure functioning markets and common public interest.
The Supreme Court seems to agree. The SEC has lost 4 out of their last 5 SC cases on cryptocurrency. All indicators from those decisions are pointing in the direction of cryptocurrency being regulated as a commodity, which is pointing towards the CFTC being the ones in charge.
This case makes the news because that is how the SEC works. They won't win this case, and they will cover up that fact by doing what they always do...create more news.