Cryptocurrency
Rae Hartley Beck first started writing about personal finance in 2011 with a regular column in her college newspaper as a staff writer. Since then she has become a leader in the Financial Independence, Retire Early (FIRE) movement and has over 300 bylines in prominent publications including Money, Bankrate and Investopedia on all things personal finance https://us-gambling-near-you.com/. A former award-winning claims specialist with the Social Security Administration, Rae continues to share her expert insider knowledge with Forbes Advisor readers.
Price volatility has long been one of the features of the cryptocurrency market. When asset prices move quickly in either direction and the market itself is relatively thin, it can sometimes be difficult to conduct transactions as might be needed. To overcome this problem, a new type of cryptocurrency tied in value to existing currencies — ranging from the U.S. dollar, other fiats or even other cryptocurrencies — arose. These new cryptocurrency are known as stablecoins, and they can be used for a multitude of purposes due to their stability.
While some cryptocurrencies have seen massive gains in the past, predicting what coin might pull a 1000x return is impossible. For a digital asset to pull this kind of gain, it would have to be a very small, high-risk project. Investors should thoroughly research any cryptocurrency, understand the risks, and never invest more than they can afford to lose.
When covering investment and personal finance stories, we aim to inform our readers rather than recommend specific financial product or asset classes. While we may highlight certain positives of a financial product or asset class, there is no guarantee that readers will benefit from the product or investment approach and may, in fact, make a loss if they acquire the product or adopt the approach.
Cryptocurrency is a form of currency that exists solely in digital form. Cryptocurrency can be used to pay for purchases online without going through an intermediary, such as a bank, or it can be held as an investment.
Bitcoin cryptocurrency
Other economists, investors, and the central bank of Estonia have described bitcoin as a potential Ponzi scheme. Legal scholar Eric Posner disagrees, however, as “a real Ponzi scheme takes fraud; bitcoin, by contrast, seems more like a collective delusion”. A 2014 World Bank report also concluded that bitcoin was not a deliberate Ponzi scheme.
The supply of bitcoins is limited to 21 million, a feature that is hard-coded into the bitcoin protocol. This scarcity is designed to ensure bitcoin is a deflationary asset, giving it some similarities to scarce commodities like gold. Unlike fiat currencies, which can be printed at will, bitcoin’s fixed supply ensures that its holders cannot be diluted by individuals or cabals issuing more monetary units.
Not only is Bitcoin (BTC) the first cryptocurrency, but it’s also the best known of the more than 19,000 cryptocurrencies in existence today. Financial media eagerly covers each new dramatic high and stomach-churning decline, making Bitcoin an inescapable part of the landscape.
Other economists, investors, and the central bank of Estonia have described bitcoin as a potential Ponzi scheme. Legal scholar Eric Posner disagrees, however, as “a real Ponzi scheme takes fraud; bitcoin, by contrast, seems more like a collective delusion”. A 2014 World Bank report also concluded that bitcoin was not a deliberate Ponzi scheme.
The supply of bitcoins is limited to 21 million, a feature that is hard-coded into the bitcoin protocol. This scarcity is designed to ensure bitcoin is a deflationary asset, giving it some similarities to scarce commodities like gold. Unlike fiat currencies, which can be printed at will, bitcoin’s fixed supply ensures that its holders cannot be diluted by individuals or cabals issuing more monetary units.
Cryptocurrency regulation
The SEC’s appeal in SEC v. Ripple Labs, Inc. follows a July 2023 ruling in the Southern District of New York that began when the SEC charged Ripple Labs, Inc. (Ripple) with conducting an unregistered securities offering through sales of its XRP token. The SEC argued that the offer and sale of XRP tokens constituted an offer and sale of investment contracts under SEC v. W.J. Howey, which provides that an “investment contract” is a contract, transaction, or scheme whereby a person: (1) “invests his money” (2) “in a common enterprise” and (3) “is led to expect profits solely from the efforts of the promoter or a third party.”4 In response, Ripple advanced an “essential ingredients test,” arguing that in addition to the three-part Howey test, investment contracts must also contain “essential ingredients”: (1) “a contract between a promoter and an investor that establishe the investor’s rights as to an investment,” which contract (2) “impose post-sale obligations on the promoter to take specific actions for the investor’s benefit” and (3) “grant the investor a right to share in profits from the promoter’s efforts to generate a return on the use of investor funds.”5
The district court, in its July 2023 ruling, rejected Ripple’s novel “essential ingredients” test, noting that “in the more than seventy-five years of securities law jurisprudence after Howey, courts have found the existence of an investment contract even in the absence of Defendants’ ‘essential ingredients,’ including in recent digital asset cases in this District.”6 Nevertheless, the district court found that, while Ripple’s institutional sales violated securities laws, the company’s programmatic sales (sales of XRP on digital asset exchanges) and other distributions (such as employee compensation and third-party development incentives) did not constitute securities offerings — marking the first major setback to the SEC’s digital asset enforcement initiative.7 Crucially, the district court distinguished between XRP sales based on their economic reality: institutional sales to sophisticated buyers under written contracts were deemed securities transactions because buyers reasonably expected profits from Ripple’s efforts, while programmatic sales on exchanges were not because buyers could not know they were purchasing from Ripple. The court also found that other distributions failed to meet the basic requirements of an “investment of money” since recipients did not provide payment to Ripple.
The South Carolina Attorney General’s Money Services Division stated in a 2018 interpretive letter that “ virtual currencies lack the characteristics of mediums of exchange. Therefore, it is the view of the Division that virtual currencies alone do not qualify as monetary value. However, to the extent that virtual currency transactions also involve the transfer of fiat currency, they may be subject to money transmission regulations under the Act.” The same letter stated that “ activities as they relate to virtual currencies do not require a license under the Act.” The Attorney General stated in Administrative Order Number MSD-19003 that “When an ATM does not act as a third party, and only facilitates a sale or purchase of virtual currency by the ATM operator directly with the customer…no license is required under the Act.” However, “ The exchange of virtual currency for fiat currency through an ATM that acts as a third party exchanger that facilitates contemporaneous exchanges of virtual currency for fiat currency…is money transmission and requires a license under the Act.” The South Carolina Attorney General’s Money Services Division has posted further guidance on their Money Services FAQs page.
The SEC’s appeal in SEC v. Ripple Labs, Inc. follows a July 2023 ruling in the Southern District of New York that began when the SEC charged Ripple Labs, Inc. (Ripple) with conducting an unregistered securities offering through sales of its XRP token. The SEC argued that the offer and sale of XRP tokens constituted an offer and sale of investment contracts under SEC v. W.J. Howey, which provides that an “investment contract” is a contract, transaction, or scheme whereby a person: (1) “invests his money” (2) “in a common enterprise” and (3) “is led to expect profits solely from the efforts of the promoter or a third party.”4 In response, Ripple advanced an “essential ingredients test,” arguing that in addition to the three-part Howey test, investment contracts must also contain “essential ingredients”: (1) “a contract between a promoter and an investor that establishe the investor’s rights as to an investment,” which contract (2) “impose post-sale obligations on the promoter to take specific actions for the investor’s benefit” and (3) “grant the investor a right to share in profits from the promoter’s efforts to generate a return on the use of investor funds.”5
The district court, in its July 2023 ruling, rejected Ripple’s novel “essential ingredients” test, noting that “in the more than seventy-five years of securities law jurisprudence after Howey, courts have found the existence of an investment contract even in the absence of Defendants’ ‘essential ingredients,’ including in recent digital asset cases in this District.”6 Nevertheless, the district court found that, while Ripple’s institutional sales violated securities laws, the company’s programmatic sales (sales of XRP on digital asset exchanges) and other distributions (such as employee compensation and third-party development incentives) did not constitute securities offerings — marking the first major setback to the SEC’s digital asset enforcement initiative.7 Crucially, the district court distinguished between XRP sales based on their economic reality: institutional sales to sophisticated buyers under written contracts were deemed securities transactions because buyers reasonably expected profits from Ripple’s efforts, while programmatic sales on exchanges were not because buyers could not know they were purchasing from Ripple. The court also found that other distributions failed to meet the basic requirements of an “investment of money” since recipients did not provide payment to Ripple.
The South Carolina Attorney General’s Money Services Division stated in a 2018 interpretive letter that “ virtual currencies lack the characteristics of mediums of exchange. Therefore, it is the view of the Division that virtual currencies alone do not qualify as monetary value. However, to the extent that virtual currency transactions also involve the transfer of fiat currency, they may be subject to money transmission regulations under the Act.” The same letter stated that “ activities as they relate to virtual currencies do not require a license under the Act.” The Attorney General stated in Administrative Order Number MSD-19003 that “When an ATM does not act as a third party, and only facilitates a sale or purchase of virtual currency by the ATM operator directly with the customer…no license is required under the Act.” However, “ The exchange of virtual currency for fiat currency through an ATM that acts as a third party exchanger that facilitates contemporaneous exchanges of virtual currency for fiat currency…is money transmission and requires a license under the Act.” The South Carolina Attorney General’s Money Services Division has posted further guidance on their Money Services FAQs page.