Thanks for the link, the reasoning from the ruling [1] is a bit more precise however. For the purposes of establishing standing the SEC to prosecute. The judge reasoned to that in part with this:
"First, the Court must determine whether the BTCST investments constitute an investment of money. It is clear that Bitcoin can be used as money. It can be used to purchase goods or services, and as Shavers stated, used to pay for individual living expenses. The only limitation of Bitcoin is that it is limited to those places that accept it as currency. However, it can also be exchanged for conventional currencies, such as the U.S. dollar, Euro, Yen, and Yuan. Therefore, Bitcoin is a currency or form of money, and investors wishing to invest in BTCST provided an investment of money."
The key here is that the judge is trying to understand if the transactions involved met the standard of being an 'investment of money.' Which he reasons to by establishing that you can convert currency to and from BTC and you can buy products with BTC. He doesn't address the question of people who create BTC out of the act of 'mining' it. Let's say Van Gough was alive today, you could use his paintings as "money" in exactly the same way, except Van Gough could make new money just by painting something. Which makes other things more complicated (are bottles of tide "money" if you can trade them for drugs? [2]) It sounds like this ruling simply allowed the SEC to move forward with their case, but I'll be interested to watch it to see if it gets appealed (the ruling). Clearly ruling to overly broad here would put the onus on people with collectibles to follow FinCen rules when trading them, which to date they have largely avoided.
"First, the Court must determine whether the BTCST investments constitute an investment of money. It is clear that Bitcoin can be used as money. It can be used to purchase goods or services, and as Shavers stated, used to pay for individual living expenses. The only limitation of Bitcoin is that it is limited to those places that accept it as currency. However, it can also be exchanged for conventional currencies, such as the U.S. dollar, Euro, Yen, and Yuan. Therefore, Bitcoin is a currency or form of money, and investors wishing to invest in BTCST provided an investment of money."
The key here is that the judge is trying to understand if the transactions involved met the standard of being an 'investment of money.' Which he reasons to by establishing that you can convert currency to and from BTC and you can buy products with BTC. He doesn't address the question of people who create BTC out of the act of 'mining' it. Let's say Van Gough was alive today, you could use his paintings as "money" in exactly the same way, except Van Gough could make new money just by painting something. Which makes other things more complicated (are bottles of tide "money" if you can trade them for drugs? [2]) It sounds like this ruling simply allowed the SEC to move forward with their case, but I'll be interested to watch it to see if it gets appealed (the ruling). Clearly ruling to overly broad here would put the onus on people with collectibles to follow FinCen rules when trading them, which to date they have largely avoided.
[1] http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/08/06/Bitcoin.pdf
[2] http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/03/why-are-...