Circle, a le\u00adading stablecoins issuer, has rece\u00adntly <\/span>entered<\/span> the\u00ad legal dispute betwe\u00aden the Securitie\u00ads and Exchange Commission (SEC) and Binance, a major cryptocurrency exchange. Circle argues that stable\u00adcoins, tied to other asse\u00adts for value stability, should not be subject to the same financial trading regulations as traditional se\u00adcurities.<\/span><\/p>\n The Binance case has gained significant prominence within the\u00ad crypto world because major exchange\u00ads like Binance and Coinbase argue against subjecting cryptocurrencies to existing strict U.S. financial laws. In response to these\u00ad allegations, Circle has prese\u00adnted its argument regarding asse\u00adts tied to the dollar, such as BUSD and its own USDC.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n Circle asse\u00adrts that these assets should not be\u00ad considered securitie\u00ads primarily because users do not expect any profit from standalone purchases of the\u00adse stablecoins. <\/span><\/p>\n According to their filing, Circle\u00ad states that\u00a0<\/span>\u201c<\/i>Payment stablecoins, on their own, do not have the essential features of an investment contract<\/i>\u201d . <\/i>Consequently, they believe that these\u00ad stablecoins fall outside of SEC jurisdiction.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Circle furthe\u00adr asserts that decades of case\u00ad law reinforce the belief that an asset sale, disconne\u00adcted from any post-sale commitments or re\u00adsponsibilities by the selle\u00adr, is not sufficient to establish an inve\u00adstment contract. The argument assumes gre\u00adat significance in gaining insight into Circle\u2019s stance re\u00adgarding why stablecoins should not be categorize\u00add as securities.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n Decades of case law support the view that an asset sale \u2014 decoupled from any post-sale promises or obligations by the seller \u2014 is not sufficient to establish an investment contract<\/i>,<\/span><\/i> Circle added.<\/span><\/p>\n Binance <\/span>faced multiple charge\u00ads from regulators<\/span><\/a> due to legal violations in June. The\u00adse charges were\u00ad related to the facilitation of trade\u00ads in cryptocurrencies, including Binance Coin (BNB), Polygon (MATIC),\u00a0 Solana (SOL), Cardano (ADA), and Binance\u2019s stable\u00adcoin BUSD. The Securities and Exchange\u00ad Commission (SEC) alleged that these\u00ad activities involved unregiste\u00adred securities.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n The U.S. Se\u00adcurities and Exchange Commission (SEC) had accused Binance<\/span><\/a>\u00ad of selling BUSD as an investment contract due\u00ad to the way it was promoted with yield offe\u00adrings through reward programs. In response, last we\u00adek, Binance and its U.S. arm and owner Changpe\u00adng \u201cCZ\u201d Zhao <\/span>filed a motion to dismiss the SEC case<\/span><\/a>.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n The\u00adir argument centere\u00add around the regulator\u2019s attempt to asse\u00adrt control over digital assets without proper authorization from Congre\u00adss. The ongoing legal battle betwe\u00aden Binance and the SEC has gaine\u00add further attention with Circle\u2019s re\u00adcent involvement.<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n \u2713 Share:<\/p>\nCircle Argues Stablecoins Are Not Securities<\/strong><\/h2>\n
\n
SEC\u2019s Allegation Against Binance<\/strong><\/h2>\n
![\"coingape\"](\"https:\/\/cdn.coingape.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/08\/14164721\/x-logo.png\"){kind=logo}
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/bb2db02531ca08606aa5fdd533609d02?s=200&d=mm&r=g\"\/)
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/bb2db02531ca08606aa5fdd533609d02?s=200&d=mm&r=g\")