Set aside what Bitcoin enthusiasts <i>want</i> it to be for a moment, and think about the transactions that are actually happening.<p>Is the majority of the usage pattern currency-like, where people are getting paid in BTC and buying things with BTC?<p>Or is the majority of the usage pattern that of a commodity, where people are mostly buying and selling it for fiat currency, and trying to do so at a profit?<p>I would strongly suspect the latter: the <i>vast</i> majority of BTC transactions (other than transfers between personal wallets) are the buying and selling of BTC for fiat currency.<p>Even most "Pay with Bitcoin" businesses are this way: in reality, all you're doing is selling your Bitcoin to an exchange who will convert it to USD and pay the USD-denominated price of the item you're buying. Gold certainly can't do this so conveniently, but the principle is the same: I want to buy something, so I sell some gold and use the USD to buy things.
This is an interesting development. Typically commodities futures and options contracts can only be traded on a DCM (designated contract market) like ICE or CME. After leaving once DCM, the Chicago Climate Exchange, I started an exchange as a service startup, Exchangery, and sought DCM status. It requires a 12-18 month approval process, typically > 500k in legal fees, and a guarantee fund that is based on the amount of money moved across the platform. The last requirement could easily be 10s of millions for something like Bitcoin. It used to only be imposed on clearing firms, but post Dodd-Frank it is applied to the exchange as well.<p>This is drastically going to thin the players in the space, and probably force most bitcoin exchanges to stay strictly in the non-derivative trading world. It might also tempt players like CME and ICE in to trading futures on Bitcoin if they think the volumes are potentially large enough.<p>As far as SEFs go, they are limited to swap trading, which can be dressed up to act like an option but isn't really the same thing.<p>Fun times ahead.
So far we have gotten Bitcoin classified:<p>* CFTC: Commodity
* IRS: Property
* Judge: Currency
* SEC: Security
* TSA: Cash<p>One step closer to world domination.
Coinflip founder here. I'm not sure what this means for Bitcoin, but the CFTC taking a clear stance is a plus for Bitcoin derivatives. The chance of a serious player like CME listing Bitcoin derivatives just went from zero to non-zero.
This makes sense. The CFTC regulates futures and derivatives in things other than stocks. Futures and derivatives imply that at a future time, someone will have to pay up. Without regulation, that tends to turn into a "take the money and run" business. If there's some intermediary who holds customer deposits, there's a huge temptation to speculate with customer funds. It takes regulation, audits, and guarantees of financial strength to back up such an intermediary.<p>This isn't unique to Bitcoin. It's a general property of futures markets. Bitcoin, though, has had far too many intermediaries go under for the short length of time it's been in business.
Hmm. When I think of commodity, I think of something that can be traded or consumed. Wheat? You can trade it or consume it. Metals, water rights, carbon credits? You can trade or consume them. Bitcoin doesn't have a consumption model. It's purely an exchange mechanism.
Governments appear to be classifying bitcoin as a commodity so that they can tax and regulate it more heavily. I say this because I cannot find any definition of 'money' which would not include bitcoin, and these are the effects of the classification. If I am wrong, could someone please explain how and why?<p>P.S. I have never mined, bought, sold, or possessed bitcoin.
Aside: I've always found it peculiar that there are separate agencies in the US to regular commodities and derivatives markets (CFTS) vs. the SEC, which seems to regulate only equity/stock markets and options on stock. (But not options on futures or options on stock market indexes?)<p>Of course, it's nothing compared to Canada - which lacks a federal securities regulator and had separate agencies for each province. (Though they are associated with one another, it seems they still have significant independence)
The real issue with the video in the article is that the main two guys answering questions don't seem to really understand Bitcoin. Making the statement that as the number of transactions grow, that the price of bitcoin will drop is just completely wrong. The number of transactions will only grow if adoption grows and that will change the supply/demand curve in a way that increases the value. And what's with the first guy being so obsessed with PhDs and saying XT hasn't been peer-reviewed. The review process for Bitcoin is seeing adoption by those running full nodes, if people approve of XT, they will adopt it, if not, the fork will fail.
Any lawyers able to comment on what happens when untested federal government agency policies conflict with each other? How can you blame any company operating in this space? The agencies haven't figured their shit how. How could a company?
I know very little about regulations on commodities trading.<p>Is there a chance that the CFTC will decide to regulate not only trading in bitcoin derivatives but also trading in bitcoin itself ?
Is this a good thing? Or bad?<p>Sure, we want it to replace money but that doesn't seem feasible when all debts in your given country must be paid with your given country's currency. This now puts it in the running with things like silver and gold -- perhaps it will spur more trading?
Isn't bitcoin explicitly a currency? I don't see any ambiguity around that. Or do you only get to be a currency if you're backed by a government entity that can be manipulated?