Page 21

‍

References

‍

Bitcoin Market Data: https://www.coingecko.com/en/coins/bitcoin

‍

Gold Market Data: https://www.gold.org/goldhub/data

‍

ARK S-Curve Analysis: https://ark-invest.com/big-ideas/bitcoin

‍

On-chain Volume: https://glassnode.com/charts/onchain/usage/tx-volume-adjusted

‍

Lightning Network Metrics: https://1ml.com/statistics

‍

Global Money Supply Data: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/M2

‍

DeFi TVL: https://defillama.com/coins/wbtc

‍

Institutional Custody: https://www.fidelitydigitalassets.com

‍

ETF Tracker: https://ark-invest.com/newsletters/etf-btc-inflows

‍

Global Findex Report: https://globalfindex.worldbank.org

‍

CoinShares Mining Report: https://www.coinshares.com/research/bitcoin-mining-network-report

‍

‍

Next: Section 6 – Legal & Regulatory Compliance (A. Jurisdiction and Legal Structure – begins immediately). 

‍

6. Legal & Regulatory Compliance – Bitcoin (BTC)

A. Jurisdiction and Legal Structure

‍

Bitcoin’s legal and regulatory profile presents a complex and dynamic matrix—one shaped by the protocol’s decentralized nature, global borderlessness, and its evolution from a grassroots movement to an institutional-grade financial asset. Unlike traditional corporations or even most cryptocurrency projects, Bitcoin does not have a registered entity, foundation, or headquarters. It is not issued by a legal entity, has no central promoter, and operates via a permissionless, open-source protocol. These characteristics make Bitcoin unique from a compliance standpoint, offering both strategic advantages and legal ambiguity depending on jurisdictional interpretation.

‍

In this section, we explore Bitcoin’s jurisdictional footprint and structural legal positioning with deep institutional detail, emphasizing how its architecture interacts with global regulatory regimes. Each point is followed by direct source links for auditability and investment diligence purposes.

‍

1. Bitcoin Has No Legal Entity, Headquarters, or Centralized Issuer

‍

Bitcoin was created pseudonymously by "Satoshi Nakamoto" in 2009 and released under the MIT Open Source License. There is no registered company, foundation, or organization that governs Bitcoin’s issuance or development. Unlike Ethereum (Ethereum Foundation), Solana (Solana Labs), or Cardano (IOHK), Bitcoin is governed entirely by open-source contributors and community consensus.

‍

Implications:

‍

Bitcoin cannot be sued, sanctioned, dissolved, or seized through traditional legal mechanisms.

‍

There is no entity that can modify monetary policy or act as a counterparty in legal proceedings.

‍

Source:

‍

MIT License Repository: https://opensource.org/licenses/MIT

‍

Bitcoin.org GitHub Repository: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin

‍

2. Bitcoin Is Classified Differently Across Jurisdictions

‍

Since there is no issuing entity, most regulatory jurisdictions classify Bitcoin based on its use-case profile and market behavior, rather than as a legal instrument issued by an organization.

‍

United States: Bitcoin is classified as a commodity, regulated by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). It is not deemed a security under the Howey Test because there is no investment contract or identifiable issuer.

‍

Source:

‍

CFTC Statement on Bitcoin: https://www.cftc.gov/Bitcoin/index.htm

‍

SEC vs. CFTC Guidance on Crypto: https://www.sec.gov/news/public-statement/statement-clayton-2017-12-11

‍

European Union: Bitcoin is treated as a digital asset and is currently regulated under the Markets in Crypto Assets (MiCA) regulation. MiCA provides a harmonized legal framework but focuses primarily on tokens with identifiable issuers. Bitcoin’s decentralized nature exempts it from many of these compliance requirements.

‍

Source:

‍

MiCA Regulation Text: https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-13198-2022-INIT/en/pdf

‍

ESMA Clarification on MiCA Scope: https://www.esma.europa.eu/press-news/esma-news/mica-regulation

‍

Japan: Bitcoin is classified as a legal payment method under Japan’s Payment Services Act since 2017. Exchanges must be licensed, and anti-money laundering (AML) rules apply, but Bitcoin itself is not treated as a security or financial product.

‍

Source:

‍

Japan FSA Guidelines: https://www.fsa.go.jp/en/news/2021/20210416.html

‍

Payment Services Act Overview: https://www.fsa.go.jp/en/news/2017/20170407-1.html

‍

Singapore: Bitcoin is regulated as a Digital Payment Token (DPT) under the Payment Services Act (PSA). The token itself is not regulated as a security, but service providers must obtain a DPT license and comply with AML/CTF rules.

‍

Source:

‍

MAS Payment Services Act: https://www.mas.gov.sg/regulation/explainers/payment-services-act

‍

MAS DPT Guidelines: https://www.mas.gov.sg/regulation/explainers/cryptocurrencies

‍

United Kingdom: The FCA does not regulate Bitcoin directly but mandates that crypto service providers be registered under AML compliance rules. Bitcoin is classified as "exchange tokens"—not securities or e-money.

‍

Source:

‍

FCA Crypto Classification: https://www.fca.org.uk/news/statements/cryptoassets-approach

‍

HM Treasury Crypto Guidelines: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/cryptoassets-consultation-and-call-for-evidence

‍

3. Bitcoin Benefits From Legal Recognition Without Legal Liability

‍

Bitcoin enjoys a unique legal advantage: it is recognized as a legal commodity or payment asset in many jurisdictions, yet it is not a legal entity and cannot be held liable under statutory laws.

‍

Strategic Advantage:

‍

Bitcoin’s protocol cannot be compelled by court orders.

‍

There is no legal custodian, foundation, or DAO that could be forcibly altered or nationalized.

‍

Bitcoin’s legal architecture acts as a shield against jurisdictional overreach.

‍

This makes Bitcoin uniquely resilient in geopolitical conflict zones or regulatory capture environments.

‍

Supporting Analysis:

‍

Harvard Law School – Bitcoin’s Legal Personality: https://journals.library.harvard.edu/ilj/2020/04/bitcoin-legal-personality/

‍

4. Legal Recognition by Sovereign Nations Strengthens Jurisdictional Legitimacy

‍

A growing number of sovereign nations are not only permitting Bitcoin use but incorporating it into their financial frameworks.

‍

El Salvador made Bitcoin legal tender in 2021. This means BTC must be accepted for all debts and obligations within the country.

‍

Source:

‍

El Salvador BTC Law Text: https://www.asamblea.gob.sv/sites/default/files/documents/2021-06/LEY%20BITCOIN.pdf

‍

IMF & El Salvador BTC Analysis: https://www.imf.org/en/News/Articles/2021/06/25/na062521-el-salvador-bitcoin-law

‍

Central African Republic also granted Bitcoin legal status in 2022 and launched the Sango project for blockchain integration into sovereign infrastructure.

‍

Source:

‍

CAR BTC Law Report: https://www.reuters.com/world/africa/central-african-republic-adopts-bitcoin-legal-tender-2022-04-27/

‍

This level of sovereign adoption adds jurisdictional precedent that may inform future adoption in frontier economies.

‍

5. Decentralized Network Governance Protects Bitcoin from Legal Capture

‍

Bitcoin’s protocol is governed by a decentralized consensus of node operators and developers. Any changes to consensus rules require:

‍

Social agreement across thousands of nodes,

‍

Protocol compatibility testing,

‍

Open-source implementation,

‍

Voluntary node upgrades.

‍

There is no central body that can unilaterally change policy or enforce compliance mandates—this decentralization provides legal resilience unmatched by any traditional organization.

‍

Source:

‍

Bitcoin Improvement Proposal (BIP) Process: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips

‍

6. Bitcoin’s Legal Neutrality Enhances Its Global Portability

‍

Because Bitcoin is not a security, not a company, and not a regulated entity in most jurisdictions, it is considered legally neutral digital property, making it easier to integrate into:

‍

Cross-border trade,

‍

Peer-to-peer remittances,

‍

Sovereign reserves,

‍

Estate planning and wealth transfer structures.

‍

For institutions, this means lower jurisdictional friction for multi-national adoption, easier trust creation, and smoother tax arbitration planning.

‍

Legal Precedents for Digital Property Classification:

‍

IRS Guidance Classifying BTC as Property: https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/n-14-21.pdf

‍

UK HMRC Tax Treatment of BTC: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/tax-on-cryptoassets

‍

7. Conclusion: Bitcoin’s Legal Structure Is an Institutional Asset Advantage

‍

Bitcoin’s legal structure—its absence of legal structure—is itself a feature, not a flaw. In a world of regulatory arbitrage, tax complexity, and compliance burdens, Bitcoin’s decentralized legal profile:

‍

Enhances resilience,

‍

Simplifies jurisdictional adoption,

‍

Reduces regulatory liability for holders,

‍

Protects monetary policy from capture.

‍

Its classification as property, commodity, or exchange token in major jurisdictions offers sufficient legal recognition without overregulation, allowing investors to deploy capital with relative certainty and reduced counterparty risk.

‍

Bitcoin represents a new asset category altogether—not just a new kind of money, but a legally uncapturable economic substrate.

‍

Let's continue with Section 6B – Securities Law

‍

Legal & Regulatory Compliance – Bitcoin (BTC)

B. Securities Law 

‍

Securities law is arguably the most consequential legal domain for digital assets, as it determines whether a token or asset must comply with rigorous disclosure, registration, and investor protection mandates. In the context of Bitcoin, this discussion takes on a unique form. Bitcoin is not a security, and this classification—or more accurately, non-classification—has been consistently reinforced across jurisdictions. Unlike most newer cryptocurrencies that may fall under securities regulation due to their issuance mechanisms or centralized promotional structures, Bitcoin’s structural independence, lack of issuer, and immutable monetary policy place it outside the conventional scope of securities law.

‍

In this section, we provide an institutional-grade analysis of Bitcoin’s relationship to securities law, the legal tests used to make this determination, comparative assessments with other digital assets, and implications for investors, funds, and regulatory compliance officers. Each legal principle and regulatory assertion is accompanied by a direct source link for due diligence and documentation.

‍

1. Bitcoin Has Been Explicitly Declared Not a Security by U.S. Regulators

‍

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has publicly and repeatedly declared that Bitcoin is not a security, and therefore does not fall under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

‍

The foundational reason: Bitcoin does not satisfy the criteria of the Howey Test, the primary legal test used to determine whether an asset constitutes an “investment contract”—a form of security under U.S. law.

‍

SEC Chairman Jay Clayton stated in 2018:

“Cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin are replacements for sovereign currencies... That type of currency is not a security.”

Source: https://www.sec.gov/news/public-statement/statement-clayton-2017-12-11

‍

Further affirmation came from former SEC Director of Corporation Finance William Hinman, who clarified in 2018 that:

“...the network on which Bitcoin is operating is decentralized, and the investment in Bitcoin is not an investment contract.”

Source: https://www.sec.gov/news/speech/speech-hinman-061418

‍

These statements establish a clear precedent: Bitcoin is viewed as a commodity-like asset, not a security, from a U.S. regulatory standpoint.

‍

2. Bitcoin Fails the Howey Test and Therefore Is Not an Investment Contract

‍

The Howey Test, established in SEC v. W.J. Howey Co., 328 U.S. 293 (1946), determines whether a transaction qualifies as an “investment contract.” An asset must meet all four criteria to be classified as a security:

‍

1. An investment of money

‍

2. In a common enterprise

‍

3. With an expectation of profits

‍

4. Derived from the efforts of others

‍

Bitcoin fails this test on multiple fronts:

‍

There is no common enterprise because Bitcoin was not issued by an entity, has no central management team, and no controlling organization.

‍

Profits in Bitcoin are not derived from the efforts of others, but from free market demand and independent market dynamics.

‍

There is no promotional entity soliciting investments in Bitcoin on behalf of the network.

‍

Legal Reference: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/328/293/

‍

As such, Bitcoin does not meet the conditions to be regulated under U.S. securities law—a view shared by multiple courts and regulatory bodies.

‍

3. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) Regulates Bitcoin as a Commodity

‍

In the United States, the CFTC has formally classified Bitcoin as a commodity, alongside gold, oil, and wheat. This classification grants the CFTC authority over derivatives markets involving Bitcoin (futures, options, swaps), but not over spot market activity or the asset itself.

‍

In CFTC v. McDonnell (2018), a U.S. District Court held that Bitcoin is a commodity under the Commodity Exchange Act.

Source: https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/7681-18

‍

This delineation means that while BTC trading platforms may fall under commodities rules in certain cases, the asset itself is not subject to SEC securities compliance mandates.

‍

CFTC’s official statement:

“Bitcoin and other virtual currencies are commodities under the Commodity Exchange Act.”

Source: https://www.cftc.gov/Bitcoin/index.htm

‍

4. Bitcoin ETFs Were Approved on the Basis That BTC Is Not a Security

‍

The SEC’s approval of spot Bitcoin ETFs in January 2024 further reinforces Bitcoin’s non-security status. The approvals were granted to products issued by asset managers including BlackRock, Fidelity, Franklin Templeton, ARK 21Shares, and Invesco.

‍

These ETFs were registered under the Securities Act of 1933 (Form S-1 filings), but the underlying asset—Bitcoin—was not treated as a security. Instead, it was positioned as a commodity akin to gold or silver, with ETFs structured similarly to GLD (SPDR Gold Shares).

‍

The SEC’s ETF approval implicitly confirms Bitcoin’s classification as a commodity suitable for regulated fund tracking, not a security requiring SEC-registered disclosures.

‍

Source:

‍

BlackRock IBIT ETF: https://www.blackrock.com/us/individual/products/334010614/ishares-bitcoin-trust

‍

SEC S-1 Filings for Bitcoin ETFs: https://www.sec.gov/edgar/browse/?CIK=0001324517

‍

5. Other Jurisdictions Also Exclude Bitcoin From Securities Classification

‍

European Union (EU): Under MiCA, Bitcoin is recognized as a digital asset, not a “crypto-asset service product” (CASP) requiring securities registration. MiCA primarily targets stablecoins and tokenized assets issued by identifiable promoters.

‍

Reference: https://www.esma.europa.eu/press-news/esma-news/mica-regulation

‍

Japan: Bitcoin is legally recognized as "electronic money" or a means of payment, not a security under Japan’s Financial Instruments and Exchange Act (FIEA). Licensing applies only to intermediaries (exchanges, custodians).

‍

Reference: https://www.fsa.go.jp/en/news/2021/20210416.html

‍

Switzerland: Bitcoin is considered a payment token under FINMA guidelines, not a security token or utility token, and is regulated under AML laws, not securities laws.

‍

FINMA Guidance: https://www.finma.ch/en/news/2018/02/20180216-mm-ico-wegleitung/

‍

Thank you for taking the time to read this article. We invite you to explore more content on our blog for additional insights and information.

https://www.thestandard.io/blog  

‍

"If you have any comments, questions, or suggestions, please do not hesitate to reach out to us at [Email “Coming Soon”]. We appreciate your feedback and look forward to hearing from you."

‍

CLICK HERE TO CONTINUE

PAGE 22: www.thestandard.io/blog/bitcoin-btc-the-rise-of-cryptocurrency-in-2025-22