In a recent candid Ask Me Anything (AMA) session, Charles Hoskinson, the founder of Cardano, unleashed a fervent critique aimed at the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) while raising thought-provoking questions about the decentralization of Bitcoin. This candid commentary touched on regulatory inconsistencies and the expectations of profit associated with Bitcoin investments.

SEC’s Cryptic Cryptocurrency Classification

Hoskinson’s primary criticism was directed at the SEC’s approach to cryptocurrency regulation, expressing bewilderment and frustration regarding the differentiation made between cryptocurrencies such as Ethereum, Bitcoin, and Cardano. His challenge delved beyond mere rhetoric and delved into the legal framework, specifically questioning the application of the Howey test—a crucial evaluation used to determine if an asset qualifies as a security.

He voiced his frustration, saying, “Explain to me the difference between Ethereum, Bitcoin, and Cardano, and the rest of the gang. Explain it to me. Like I’m five years old. Run the goddamn Howey test on it and show me the difference between the two. Tell me.”

Hoskinson’s critical examination underscores the ongoing struggle within the crypto space to decipher the SEC’s nuanced approach to differentiating between various digital assets, particularly in the context of their potential classification as securities.

Bitcoin’s Decentralization Dilemma

A notable facet of Hoskinson’s critique was his focus on Bitcoin’s decentralization and the perceived expectation of profit among Bitcoin enthusiasts. He coined the term “orange pill moon boys” to characterize Bitcoin advocates, suggesting an inherent anticipation of profit within this community.

He questioned, “Is there an expectation of return with the goddamn orange pill moon boys? It’s there.” This observation is crucial, as the expectation of profit is one of the key prongs of the Howey test, often used to classify assets as securities.

Challenging the Narrative of Bitcoin’s Decentralization

In a bold assertion, Hoskinson challenged the narrative surrounding Bitcoin’s decentralization, implying that it might not be as decentralized as widely believed. He argued that a 51% attack on Bitcoin could be feasible with subpoenas to three major mining pools, challenging the widely accepted notion of Bitcoin’s robust decentralization.

Hoskinson stated, “If you subpoena about three different entities [the largest mining pools], you could perform a 51% attack on Bitcoin because that’s the way the hash power works. But it’s decentralized. And team orange get a complete [free] pass. It’s a pathetic f*****g joke.”

Adam Back’s Defense of Bitcoin’s Decentralization

Responding to Hoskinson’s claims, Adam Back, CEO of Blockstream, defended Bitcoin’s decentralized status and emphasized its distinction from other cryptocurrencies. He highlighted Bitcoin’s organic growth from zero value, its lack of an initial coin offering (ICO), and its decentralized nature as key differentiators.

Back argued, “Bitcoin did not do an ICO, most people thought it had no value, it was mined from zero, it is decentralized, there is no CEO…”

Cardano’s Launch and the 51% Attack Myth

In response to the defense of Bitcoin’s decentralization, Hoskinson clarified the nature of Cardano’s launch, stating, “There was no Cardano ICO. There was an airdrop onto a distribution… A voucher sale of a different asset outside of the United States, priced in Yen, settled in Bitcoin, explained in Japanese to Japanese citizens, and without a single US participant does not constitute an ICO of Ada.”

Furthermore, the conversation delved into the technical realm, with Erik Voorhees, CEO of ShapeShift, addressing Hoskinson’s claim about a potential 51% attack on Bitcoin. Voorhees debunked this notion as a common myth, explaining the operational dynamics of Bitcoin mining pools and countering the concerns raised by Hoskinson.

Conclusion: A Complex Tapestry of Decentralization and Regulatory Ambiguity

Charles Hoskinson’s candid critique of the SEC’s regulatory stance and his thought-provoking questions about Bitcoin’s decentralization open up a complex tapestry of discussions within the crypto community. The nuances of regulatory classifications, the expectations associated with Bitcoin investments, and the ongoing debate about the decentralization of major cryptocurrencies highlight the evolving nature of this space.

As the crypto landscape continues to evolve, these discussions contribute to the ongoing narrative of regulatory clarity, technological innovation, and the quest for decentralized financial systems. The clash of perspectives among industry leaders showcases the challenges and opportunities inherent in navigating the intricate intersection of technology, finance, and regulation within the crypto ecosystem.