Legal fiction vs. crypto reality

Cointelegraph reported that former SEC Commissioner Paul Atkins called ETH “not a security.” To be honest, it’s been over 15 hours since that post went live, and I still haven’t found a single source confirming he actually said that. So maybe it’s not even true.

But I don’t want to focus on the news itself. I want to talk about what statements like this actually mean.

A lawyer once told me:
“In court, black is black not because it looks black, but because the law says it is. And if the law says black is white, then that’s what the court will go by – not what you see with your eyes.”

Now take ETH, for example:

• Ten years ago, before the network launched, premined ETH was sold to early investors in exchange for BTC. These investors weren’t just donating their coins - they believed in the devs’ promise to build something big. If the project succeeded, the tokens were expected to go up in value (at the very least due to gas demand).
• To this day, ETH’s value still largely depends on the same people who sold those premined tokens. They're the ones who decide on hard forks, roadmap priorities, upgrade timing - basically everything.
• And ETH gives you access to yield from the ecosystem itself - through staking.

Given all that, I don’t see how anyone could not classify ETH as a security. It’s textbook Howey Test stuff.

But nope - the industry is waiting for an official statement in an official document. That’s what will “decide” reality.

All I can say is: Bitcoin fixes this.

Bitcoin has been running for 16 years, no matter what any official says.
And more and more people around the world are choosing it - across borders, across legal systems.

Something to think about.

And if you want to swap ETH or BTC - both are available at the best rates on rabbit.io.