FAKE CRYPTOCURRENCY NEWS
Cryptocurrency enthusiasts, particularly those involved in or contemplating an initial coin offering (ICO), appear to have a palpable fear of regulators -- especially fear of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).
This phenomenon of fear (and uncertainty) is compounded by significantly flawed media coverage on the topic of cryptocurrency.
We all see the term "FAKE NEWS" being tossed around these days like confetti at a New Year's Eve party on Times Square. But the term "fake news" is not at all well defined. Although the term implies that one ought to use it as a defense against falsehoods and fabrications, it is all too often used ironically as a defense against the truth. Isn't it better to judge a news story based on whether or not it is precise and accurate?
Imprecission and inaccuracy in journalism do not necessarily produce what is popularly (and very loosely) referred to as "fake" news. But lack of sophistication or care (or both) in writing news stories may mislead the reader. It is dangerous because it affects public perception on important issues.
For example, an uncredited CNBC story entitled "Virtual currencies are commodities, US judge rules" led at least one (non-lawyer) reader of my acquaintance to conclude that if cryptocurrency is a commodity then cryptocurrency is not a security. https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/07/cryptocurrencies-like-bitcoin-are-commodities-us-judge-rules.html?__source=Twitter%7Ctopstories
Judging a particular cryptocurrency to be a "commodity" under the jurisdiction of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) does not preclude that commodity from also being judged to be a "security" under the jurisdiction of the SEC. Indeed, there is a laundry list of federal agencies that may have jurisdiction over cryptocurrency in general.
The CNBC article mentioned above veers particularly perilously into the realm of imprecision and inaccuracy in its last paragraph when it states: "Regulation of virtual currencies is still in its early stages. Congress has not passed any laws addressing it directly." Those statements are misleading.
It is imprecise and inaccurate (and misleading) to say Congress has not passed any laws addressing cryptocurrency directly. I believe it is precise and accurate to say Congress has not passed any laws addressing cryptocurrency directly by name.
It is imprecise and inaccurate (and misleading) to say regulation of virtual currency is still in its early stages. I believe it is precise and accurate to say regulatory agencies operating pursuant to laws already adopted long ago by Congress, the SEC for example, are in the early stages of (a) interpreting existing laws as they may apply to cryptocurrency, (b) assessing existing regulations as they may apply to cryptocurrency, and (c) considering possible future regulations addressing cryptocurrency explicitly by name and type.
Regarding the overall state of the law in cryptocurrency, I believe no one can assert with certainty that every existing or conceivable cryptocurrency necessarily is or will be a security. But more practically, nothing prevents the SEC (and/or other regulatory agencies) from characterizing all types of cryptocurrency as securities (and/or as other instruments subject to regulation), delimited by judicial and/or legislative intervention.
Cheers!
The Great Dane
Postscripts:
Some readers may rightly detect that the title of this article — "FAKE CRYPTOCURRENCY NEWS" — is ambiguous. Indeed, it is intended to be ambiguous. It is susceptible of two interpretations, and I hope to attract not one but two types of readers: (1) those humans who read the title as referring to "news about fake cryptocurrency" and (2) those humans who read the title as referring to "fake news about cryptocurrency".
Which, dear reader, did you read it as? How would artificial intelligence (AI) read it?
I invite questions, refutation, and support.
CAUTION/DISCLAIMER: Please do not take any of what is written in this editorial as legal advice (or, for that matter, as advice of any kind). One should always seek advice of one's own legal counsel and/or other relevant professionals.
Even I did not meet you personally I can imagine how will speak and explaining all those point with your body gesture... sometime people just look at the tittle of the news and they like "hey... look at this its a fake news again...and without looking through the content they start to put their own conclusion because it is about the current issues and been spit out from the televisions, radios and even worst from a very well known people supporting the news but they didn't realize.. what actually had happen..it is a normal people behavior it is rare to see people try to be in both side to find the truth. Hope that relate to your contents... Thanks
That's quite a compliment -- thank you. Yes, I believe you do understand my post very well. You make an excellent point: sometimes the news obscures the truth.
You are welcome, thanks for the reply. I'm in learning process to get more knowledge in this field. I know some able to breathe well again after the meeting they've said the good thing about the cryptocurrency.
I read it as news about fake cryptocurrency or some cryptocurrency that put out fake news and was uncertain from the start. thanks for the summary . I also think that is what is going on. however people are scared because the enforcement agencies tend to subpoena first and ask questions later, and they also tend to be a tad vague about what they really want. welcome to steemit looking forward to more from you. best of luck.
Exactly! I'm glad my post twisted you around a bit. I wanted to provoke precisely that sort of uncertainty. The exercise demonstrates how easily a few words can confuse or mislead the reader. And yes, legal discovery devices such as subpoenas can be confounding at times. There is, I believe, a distinct art to drafting those instruments. Thanks very much for reading and commenting. Much appreciated.
Welcome to steemit @thegreatdane . My immediate take on the title was fake news about crypto. But if people are creating truly censorship free decentralized networks why then worry about regulators?
Looking forward to reading more of your posts
Thank you for your kind welcome. And thanks for your "take" on the title. All of us live in physical jurisdictions in which central authority laws apply; hence, we must respect the regulations of our domiciles no matter what happens with internet technology. I do plan to post more material. Thank you for your encouragement.
Congratulations @thegreatdane, this post is the most rewarded post (based on pending payouts) in the last 12 hours written by a Dust account holder (accounts that hold between 0 and 0.01 Mega Vests). The total number of posts by Dust account holders during this period was 8267 and the total pending payments to posts in this category was $969.22. To see the full list of highest paid posts across all accounts categories, click here.
If you do not wish to receive these messages in future, please reply stop to this comment.
That is fascinating quantitative information. I am grateful that my post is getting such superb exposure. My thanks for all the support.
Love fresh perspective! Welcome to Steemit Dane!
Thanks very much for your support. Please watch for more of my thoughts to come!
Some people are scared because of such crap lurking everyday in media, news and these regulators who don't know what they're doing it seems. The good thing is, if the price is cheap then there's more time to take the chance of buying it cheap. The world of investing don't need brains without courage and guts :)
Excellent comment. Thank you for reading my article. Yes, there are imprecise and inaccurate news stories littering the literary landscape. They have a destabilizing influence. I believe many journalists (and regulators) have good intentions but careless work can produce damaging results.
Good article, it wasn't what I was expecting. Personally, I read the title as news about fake cryptocurrency.
I appreciate your feedback. Thanks for reading my post all the way to the end and answering my question about which branch of the intentionally ambiguous title you perceived in the first instance. Of course, my point is that even (or especially) a news story title can be misleading.
It was an interesting post. It also reminded me that this happens a lot and that sometimes the title can be misleading on purpose. Sadly, a big amount of the content in many sites is just click bait or someone intended to spread the wrong information.
Thanks very much for commenting yet again. Yes, I have observed a prevalence in flawed news reports. Undoubtedly, sometimes those stories are the product of malice and sometimes they are the product of incompetence, ignorance, or lack or care.
To say the least ;D
Interesting article. It was quite enlightening. Thank you for the information and for sharing.
Thank you for your kind remarks. I took a very quick look at some of your comments on other posts. You devote great care to the thoughts you share.
You just have to watch a few online groups to see the flood of FUD going around with crypto. In a way they are their own worst enemies by spreading so much junk. I reckon 1 out of 10 is maybe legit news.
I am grateful for your insights, especially because I have virtually no experience following any such online cryptocurrency groups. I would like to believe that your legitimate cryptocurrency news quotient of 1/10 is pessimistic, but I imagine it could be a literally accurate figure.
To listen to the audio version of this article click on the play image.
Brought to you by @tts. If you find it useful please consider upvote this reply.
good bot
Got to love a good bot!
yeah!