LONDON (Bywire News) - In a recent captivating exchange on Twitter, the cryptocurrency community witnessed a thought-provoking debate between two influential figures in the blockchain world. On one side of the discussion was Charles Hoskinson, notable for his contributions to Ethereum's development and as the founder of Cardano. On the other side was Adam Back, a respected cryptographer and CEO of Blockstream, who has been widely recognised for his contributions to Bitcoin's development. Notably, Back was among the initial candidates speculated to be Satoshi Nakamoto, the mysterious creator of Bitcoin, alongside individuals like Craig Wright. While Back has denied being Satoshi, Wright continues to claim this identity, a matter that remains contentious within the crypto community.
An airdrop is not an ICO even the SEC has left this ambiguous. Ask the SEC what the status of EOS is after their settlement with https://t.co/QeodKgLIVY. There was no public offering of ada from a centralized source. There was one by Ethereum for ether and they apparently aren't…
— Charles Hoskinson (@IOHK_Charles) November 28, 2023
The debate delved into the contrasting treatment by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) of various cryptocurrencies, with a focus on Bitcoin, Cardano (£ADA), and Ethereum. Hoskinson strongly criticised the SEC for seemingly favouring Bitcoin, whilst other cryptocurrencies, including Cardano, face regulatory hurdles.
Adam Back's response underscored Bitcoin's unique genesis. He emphasised Bitcoin's organic growth and decentralisation, contrasting it with other cryptocurrencies that underwent Initial Coin Offerings (ICOs) or similar processes. In contrast, Bitcoin emerged without a pre-set value, mined from scratch, and operated without a centralised authority or figurehead.
Hoskinson clarified that Cardano had not conducted an ICO. Instead, it facilitated an airdrop, leading to £ADA's trading on various exchanges. He highlighted the decentralised growth and distribution of Cardano's network, countering the notion that it should be classified similarly to other cryptocurrencies that have had more centralised launches.
The discussion also touched upon the controversial EOS ICO conducted by Block.one, which faced significant criticism for its handling of the community and the project. Block.one's conduct during and after the EOS ICO raised questions about the responsibilities of entities managing large-scale cryptocurrency projects and their accountability to their communities. This situation also drew parallels to the early days of Bitcoin, where figures like Satoshi Nakamoto and Gavin Andresen played pivotal roles. Over time, ideological and operational divergences within the Bitcoin community led to significant events like the creation of Bitcoin Cash (BCH) and later Bitcoin SV (BSV), the latter of which some argue aligns more closely with Satoshi Nakamoto's original vision for Bitcoin.
Back countered Hoskinson's points by suggesting that mechanisms like airdrops and premines could still be viewed as ICOs. He pointed out the influence of management teams in projects like Cardano and Ethereum on investor expectations, a key criterion in the Howey Test used to determine if an asset is a security.
Hoskinson concluded with a strong critique of the Bitcoin community's attitude towards other cryptocurrencies, highlighting a perceived exclusivity and dismissiveness towards non-Bitcoin projects. He expressed frustration over the lobbying efforts of some within the Bitcoin community to position Bitcoin as the only legitimate cryptocurrency in the eyes of regulators.
This conversation between Hoskinson and Back reflects the complex and evolving dynamics within the cryptocurrency community, emphasising the ongoing debate over regulatory standards, the authenticity of various projects, and the true vision of Bitcoin's mysterious creator.
By Michael O'Sullivan