[dcow]

Curious: is "bitcoin" being used by the SEC as a general term to mean "all cryptos that fundamentally employ a work-based consensus algorithm", or "pure" cryptos or whatever? Or is it not yet clear to the SEC that there are more instances of Nakamoto consensus networks out there and not everything other than BTC is a security?

I agree that staked projects and derivative projects are securities since they are fundamentally a representation of or proxy for the actual thing of value, BTC, XCH, formerly ETH, etc.

[potatototoo99]

Of course not everything other than bitcoin is a security. My private blockchain no one knows about is not a security. It's not a universal law of the universe.

What they mean is every coin/token they looked at. If asked to evaluate litecoin for example probably they'd say it's not a security as well. They don't need to pass judgement on each of the thousands of coins individually because definitions and common sense exists.

[dcow]

I’m just trying to understand the context. I hope it is as you say and it would be my baseline assumption that it is as well. But it’s not unquestionably obvious given history and what relatively little context is present in this thread. The SEC used to think all crypto is a security to the point where honest miners are instructed to declare blockchain rewards as income (I have, and TurboTax even asks you if you acquired crypto in the last year with no nuance as to how you acquired it or which one you acquired). It may be obvious to you and me but my question was more about how far the SEC’s understanding has evolved.

[whimsicalism]

They refuse to offer guidance even on the largest cryptocurrencies outside of BTC.