Is crypto a currency or a stock/property? If it’s a currency, why would we ban politicians from using it? If it’s property, why would Colorado allow you to pay your taxes with it?

The seeming contradiction is seriously messing with my head folks.

Ok so hear me out. I feel like if we are on the side of supporting crypto currency adoption, then we agree that it’s a currency, and for that reason, we should be supportive of politicians using it, not banning them.

After all, politicians can use/hold/own dollars, right?

On the other hand, if the IRS treats it as property, then we can mine (create) it, or buy and hold it, without being taxed. Only when it’s sold is it taxed. We like that, right?

So that settles it. Its property.

But wait. Colorado is going to allow you to pay your taxes with it. Wouldn’t that be like paying taxes with goats or houses or footballs? Not if it’s a currency.

Ok then it’s settled. Crypto is a currency.

But wait, courts have decided in recent fraud cases that tokens are actual property of the wallet holders. Score a point for property.

But wait. We keep crypto in a wallet. When was the last time you went to pay for dinner, and proceeded to whip a pig or a house or a stock certificate out of your wallet? Never? Probably because a wallet holds… you guessed it… currency.

Ok ok ok. Maybe crypto is neither currency nor property, but a new hybrid concept; a currency-stock. “Crock” for short.

Shit-coin? That’s a “crock of shit.”

View Source

23 thoughts on “Is crypto a currency or a stock/property? If it’s a currency, why would we ban politicians from using it? If it’s property, why would Colorado allow you to pay your taxes with it?”

  1. It would be similar to gold or silver coins, which if produced by the national mint are considered legal tender. People do not use these coins for purchases because the face value is lower than the value of the metal, you could have to pay tax on a transaction, and the value will normally rise in comparison to fiat. All of the reasons crypto is sometimes compared to gold.

  2. Politicians want to enrich themselves and their cronies.

    Anything they say or do is all about that.

    “Does it make sense? Who cares. More crony enrichment.” That’s all they care about.

  3. I don’t see how allowing lawmakers to use fiat and stopping their usage of crypto is advantageous / unbiased whatsoever.

    Crypto is challenging the usd. Either lawmakers use both or neither. Having them use the one right now and not the other is backwards.

  4. Crypto is a security/asset with high liquidity and offers easier transfer of value over traditional assets.

    At the moment, it isn’t a currency, but it can be used to barter for goods. You technically could have done it with anything (eg. with pigs like you mentioned) but the logistics of it would be impossible. Crypto is like “digital pigs” that you can barter for your dinner.

    “How many digital pigs for my stake, good sir,” you ask your waiter. “17, sir, for 1 digital pig is like 2$”, he answers. And then you make the transaction. You aren’t valuing the stake in your digital pigs, but rather bartering for it.

    It could be a currency only and only if majority of people trust it implicitly, which isn’t remotely a case.

  5. Perhaps it’s a way of insuring that no one in the seat of power loses their money when they pull the rug out from crypto. Washington does take care of their own. Like McConnell and Pelosi they never make a wrong financial move. They are our nations most accurate investors in the country and our wealthiest leaders. It’s uncanny how accurate they are in their investments. This may not be the case with crypto but worthy of taking note.

  6. I’m all for the ban, make those ass antler politicians stick to the currency they’re destroying!

    As for property, I think it’s viewed like gold in that respect which straddles the property/money fence.

  7. Go watch the debate between sayles and a gold fancier, its long but really well worth the time. Great debate and although I was bias for btc I thought the Gold dude had a lot of good argument points. The only few common grounds they were on the same page is, is that btc should be treated like an assets. If it is a currency then it will be seen as a threat to goverment because simply put no goverment is going to allow their fiat to be displaced, so calling it a currency is suicide for BTC.

  8. I think crypto is considered an asset, like a property at least for tax purposes. You can trade assets for goods or sell assets for money.

  9. It’s a commodity that has potential applications to be a currency. I feel like it’s less like property in this question.

  10. It’s all and none of those things. I feel like no one’s doing anyone any service by calling tokens cryptocurrencies. A coin or token might be a currency but it can also be a carbon credit, a synthetic stock, I’m sure in the future actual stocks, there’s tokens that are bonds and securities, some are just a token you vote with in a DAO, and it can even be real estate now, the list goes on. Feel like we need to stop calling these things cryptocurrencies and call them crypto tokens or decentralized assets or something instead.

  11. It is an asset that has unique properties. I don’t think it can safely fit in any one previously assigned category. It may need a separate asset classification going forward.


Leave a Comment