Dogecoin and Shiba Inu Coin (Illustration Photo of Jakub Porzycki / Nurphoto via Getty Images)
On February 27, 2025, the American Commission for Securities and Exchange announcement That coins, cryptocurrencies inspired by memes, jokes and internet trends are not considered titles.
The news follows a series of rejected The cases of the dry against cryptographic societies, provoking an additional debate on the role of the pieces even in the wider crypto ecosystem. Although this decision gives an essential clarity, it can embrace an increasing trend that undermines the legitimacy and the future of cryptocurrency as a whole.
The coins evolve from the joke to the risky speculative trend
The rise of coins started with harmless MastiffA digital asset launched in 2013 as a joke. However, over the years, it has transformed into a phenomenon, inspiring countless other pieces with a little more than memes or cultural references such as their value proposals.
The problem with coins is blatant: They have no use and mainly operate as speculative play vehicles.
Essentially, they are nothing more than pump and dump patterns, with their value swollen by the media threshing and media buzz before inevitably crashing, leaving investors with valuable assets.
THE recent The launch of Donald Trump’s self-proclaimed $ Trump even Coin, who seemed to be an attempt to capitalize on his second inauguration, has only strengthened the absurdity of this trend. The Melania $ piece followed closely and finally even a piece of meme inspired by the old CEO of Binance, Cz dog“”Broccoli. “”
The last months have witnessed an increase in similar projects, most of them created with little or no fundamental purpose, stressing the disturbing management that the “industry” of the same is directed.
The dry declares the coins outside its jurisdiction despite the risks
The dry, one of the most diligent regulatory organizations in the world, seems to turn a blind eye to this trend.
Hester Peirce, an eminent SEC commissioner and head of the working group on crypto, commented On the question. Peirce supported that coins, without promise of commercial objective or actual investment, do not meet the criteria of security and therefore do not fall under the jurisdiction of the dry.
Consequently, transactions involving these tokens do not require the SEC recording. Despite the recognition that these documents have no intrinsic value and are often victims of fraudulent practices, Peirce stressed that the Commission did not consider them because of their fundamentally speculative nature.
Notable clarification provides a official Position on coins, saying that these tokens work more like collectibles than investment instruments.
The division of finance of companies describe That their value is mainly motivated by market demand, media -focused on social media and pure speculation. This underlines that the pieces even do not meet the characteristics of traditional securities such as actions or obligations, which generate income or represent the property of a company. He also recognized the possibility of fraudulent activities in the spaces of the pieces even, but said that such actions could be dealt with under other laws.
Although this clarification can provide temporary tranquility of the cryptography market, it raises several critical questions about the long -term consequences of the pieces even on the industry.
Coins threaten the integrity of the crypto
Coins represent the antithesis of the original intention of cryptocurrencies. They have been designed as decentralized assets with cases of real world use and tangible value.
Buyers hoping to capitalize on the parts even are often attracted to the promise of massive short -term gains, to stay by holding the bag when the media threshing inevitably discourages. In addition, many coins creators use dangerous tactics such as “carpet holders”, where developers draw the liquidity of the medal, leaving high and dry investors.
Even projects with legitimate intentions are often too volatile, frequently abandoned or manipulated to serve the interests of the first investors.
This culture of media, manipulation and fraud is not only harmful to investors, but also for the credibility of the entire cryptocurrency ecosystem.
The risk of money even
While coins become more widespread and widely accepted, they may transform cryptocurrency into a spectacle, overshadowing more serious and stable projects.
This is a problem at the industry level that the DIA’s decision is inadvertently fueling, perpetuating a speculation cycle which could ultimately lead to significant financial losses for uninformed investors.
The decision may have aimed to clarify the regulatory guidelines, but it does not do much to approach the fundamental issue At hand, the proliferation of assets which is hardly more than a form of digital game.