SEC flags Bitcoin miner hosting services as subject to securities laws

cointelegraphPublished on 2025-12-19Last updated on 2025-12-19

Abstract

The US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has filed a lawsuit against Bitcoin mining firm VBit and its founder, Danh Vo, alleging fraud and misappropriation of approximately $48 million in investor funds. The SEC claims that VBit’s third-party mining agreements qualify as securities under the Howey test, arguing that purchasers expected passive income and relied entirely on VBit’s efforts for profits. The agency also accused VBit of operating outside industry standards by pooling hashrate under its control and failing to provide transparency to investors. However, industry experts, such as Blockware Intelligence’s Mitchell Askew, argue that legitimate hosted mining services—where clients buy hardware and electricity without profit-sharing or pooled capital—do not constitute securities. The case reflects lingering enforcement approaches from the Biden administration, though the SEC under Trump has been perceived as more industry-friendly. The outcome may not broadly impact the hosted mining sector, as legitimate operations are considered distinct from investment contracts.

The US Securities and Exchange Commission has flagged in a lawsuit that third-party Bitcoin mining hosting services can be a securities offering, a position strongly opposed by one industry executive.

The SEC sued the Bitcoin (BTC) mining company VBit and its founder, Danh Vo, in a Delaware federal court on Wednesday, accusing them of fraud and misappropriating around $48 million in investor funds between 2018 and 2022 by selling a greater number of hosting agreements than there were mining rigs.

“VBit’s Hosting Agreements are investment contracts and therefore securities,” the SEC claimed, arguing that VBit’s investment contracts meet the criteria of the securities-defining Howey test.

A highlighted excerpt of the SEC’s lawsuit claiming VBit’s hosting agreements are securities. Source: SEC

“Investors who purchased Hosting Agreements did so with the expectation of earning passive income and relied exclusively on VBit’s efforts to earn a profit as the investors did not possess, control, or have agency over the mining rigs they purportedly purchased,” the agency claimed.

The SEC’s claim is a rare hangover from how the agency approached enforcement under the Biden administration, which crypto backers have said lumped most cryptocurrencies and businesses under securities laws.

VBit didn’t follow industry standards, SEC alleges

The SEC claimed that Vo’s Bitcoin mining hosting operation fell far short of standard industry practices, with investors unable to track their rigs, and the company retaining full operational control.

VBit also directed hashrate into a mining pool under its control, which appeared to be a defining factor in the SEC’s classification of VBit’s hosted Bitcoin mining agreement as a security.

In the filing, the SEC said: “The fortunes of each investor were purportedly tied to the fortunes of other investors because every investor’s chance of earning a profit was tied directly to the performance of the greater VBit mining pool, and the more investors recruited into the mining pool, the greater the chances of earning more Bitcoins.”

SEC’s view shouldn’t impact hosted Bitcoin mining industry

Mitchell Askew, the head of Blockware Intelligence, told Cointelegraph that pooling hashrate isn’t industry practice for hosted Bitcoin mining service providers.

Related: Bitcoin miners enter ‘harshest margin environment of all time’

“Hosted Bitcoin mining simply means a client purchases a computer and electricity,” he said. “There’s no pooling of capital, no profit-sharing, and no reliance on a promoter to generate returns. Under the Howey test, that is very clearly not a security.”

“I don’t think this affects the hosted mining industry at all. Legitimate hosted mining has no resemblance to an investment contract, and this theory has no legs to stand on.”

The SEC did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The SEC’s view that hosted Bitcoin mining can constitute a security is one of the most notable classifications under the Trump administration, which has positioned the SEC to be more supportive of the industry.

Several high-profile crypto investigations that the agency started under the Biden administration have since been dropped, however, many fraud-related lawsuits are ongoing.

Magazine: Big questions: Would Bitcoin survive a 10-year power outage?

Trending Cryptos

Related Questions

QWhat is the main claim made by the SEC in the lawsuit against VBit and its founder?

AThe SEC claims that VBit's Bitcoin mining hosting agreements are investment contracts and therefore securities, as they meet the criteria of the Howey test.

QHow did VBit allegedly misuse investor funds according to the SEC?

AVBit and its founder Danh Vo are accused of fraud and misappropriating around $48 million in investor funds by selling more hosting agreements than the number of actual mining rigs available between 2018 and 2022.

QWhat specific aspect of VBit's operation did the SEC highlight as a defining factor in classifying its hosting agreements as securities?

AThe SEC highlighted that VBit directed hashrate into a mining pool under its control, tying investors' profits to the performance of the VBit mining pool and the recruitment of more investors.

QAccording to Mitchell Askew, why does hosted Bitcoin mining not qualify as a security under the Howey test?

AMitchell Askew argues that hosted Bitcoin mining involves clients purchasing a computer and electricity, with no pooling of capital, no profit-sharing, and no reliance on a promoter to generate returns, which clearly does not meet the criteria of an investment contract under the Howey test.

QHow has the SEC's approach to crypto enforcement changed under the Trump administration compared to the Biden administration?

AUnder the Trump administration, the SEC has been positioned to be more supportive of the industry, with several high-profile crypto investigations started under the Biden administration being dropped, though many fraud-related lawsuits continue.

Related Reads

In Just 11 Days, Claude Rewrote Millions of Lines of Code, an Epic AI Engineering Feat Sparks Fury

In just 11 days, Bun's founder Jarred Sumner used Anthropic's Claude AI models to rewrite its million lines of code from Zig to Rust. This move sparked significant controversy, particularly from Zig's creator, Andrew Kelley, who publicly criticized Sumner's engineering practices and the decision to use AI for such a massive rewrite. Bun, a high-performance JavaScript/TypeScript runtime and rival to Node.js, was originally written in Zig. After Anthropic acquired Bun, the team encountered persistent stability and memory safety bugs in the Zig codebase. These issues, combined with Zig's strict policy against LLM-generated code, led to the decision to rewrite in Rust. The rewrite was executed using Claude AI tools at an estimated API cost of $165,000, dramatically reducing the expected time and financial cost. Andrew Kelley's response was scathing. He blamed the original bugs on poor engineering habits, calling Bun's Zig code a collection of "hacks on top of hacks." He expressed relief that Bun was no longer associated with Zig, fearing it would misrepresent the language and attract low-quality, AI-generated contributions. The tech community is divided; some view Kelley's critique as unprofessional, while others see it as a defense of engineering integrity. A major concern about the AI-driven rewrite is the resulting code quality. The translation from Zig left approximately 27,000 lines of unsafe Rust code, raising fears about long-term maintainability and technical debt. The debate centers on whether this project is a milestone in AI-assisted development or a future maintenance nightmare.

marsbit34m ago

In Just 11 Days, Claude Rewrote Millions of Lines of Code, an Epic AI Engineering Feat Sparks Fury

marsbit34m ago

From Auto Finance to Bitcoin to AI Engines: An Analysis of Cango's 'What Not to Do' Strategy

From Auto Finance to Bitcoin and Now AI: Cango's "What Not to Do" Strategy Cango, a Chinese auto finance platform that went public on the NYSE in 2018, is undergoing its third major transformation. After selling its entire auto business in 2024, it pivoted to become a large-scale Bitcoin miner, acquiring 50 exahash of mining rigs from Bitmain. However, its true goal was never Bitcoin, but owning and controlling energy infrastructure. Now, Cango is pivoting again. While most listed Bitcoin miners are leasing power to giant hyperscalers for AI training clusters, Cango is taking the opposite path. It has launched an AI inference subsidiary called EcoHash, focusing not on training but on distributed inference. The company's strategy hinges on the insight that over 70% of mining industry power is controlled by small, independent sites (10-50 MW), which are too small for hyperscalers but ideal for low-latency AI inference. Cango aims to partner with these small operators, providing the AI technology, customers, and financing through its EcoLink software layer, which can distribute workloads across sites for reliability. Cango maintains a hybrid model, running roughly 31.7 EH/s of Bitcoin mining for cash flow while aggressively cleaning its balance sheet—slashing long-term debt by 94.5% to $30.6 million and raising $75 million for its AI venture. Its first AI deployment will be at a 50 MW site in Georgia. The strategy faces skepticism, given the high costs of converting mining sites and the potential for an AI bubble. However, Cango's leadership believes discipline around "what not to do"—avoiding direct competition with hyperscalers in training—positions it to capture the long-tail demand for distributed AI inference power.

Foresight News50m ago

From Auto Finance to Bitcoin to AI Engines: An Analysis of Cango's 'What Not to Do' Strategy

Foresight News50m ago

Strategy's Bitcoin Sales Cap Far Exceeds $1.25 Billion: A Detail the Market Overlooked

The article discusses how MicroStrategy's potential Bitcoin sales go far beyond the announced $1.25 billion "reserve-building capacity." It clarifies a key distinction in the company's "BTC Monetization Program": selling Bitcoin to *build* a new dollar reserve (the $1.25B cap) versus selling to *replenish* the existing USD Reserve after it's used for expenses like preferred share dividends. The recent $216M BTC sale for dividend payments was a "replenishment," leaving the headline $1.25B building quota untouched. The plan actually outlines three potential funding pools from BTC sales: 1) Building the reserve ($1.25B cap), 2) Covering preferred share/ debt costs (no specified cap), and 3) Funding buyback programs (up to $20B). This means the structured sales potential exceeds $30 billion, not including uncapped replenishment sales. The piece argues this marks MicroStrategy's shift from a passive "buy-and-hold" Bitcoin proxy to an actively managed entity using BTC as a balance-sheet tool to manage its complex capital structure (common stock, preferred shares, debt, reserve). This creates new dynamics and potential conflicts, as actions benefiting one part (e.g., selling BTC to pay dividends) may pressure another (e.g., undermining the "never sell" narrative). Investors must now parse the company's specific terminology ("build" vs. "replenish") to understand the true scope of future BTC sales, which is significantly larger than the market initially perceived.

marsbit57m ago

Strategy's Bitcoin Sales Cap Far Exceeds $1.25 Billion: A Detail the Market Overlooked

marsbit57m ago

Goldman Sachs Report Deconstructs the Competitive Landscape of China's AI Large Models: Who Will Be the Long-Term Winner?

Goldman Sachs analyzes China's AI large language model (LLM) landscape, identifying key players and a strategic shift towards efficiency and global expansion. The report highlights that Chinese open-source/open-weight models are closing the performance gap with top global proprietary models at significantly lower cost, driven by architectural innovations like MoE. This enables a "two-tier" market: a high-end segment (e.g., GLM5.2, Qwen3.7 Max) with pricing at ~$1 per million tokens, and a low-end, price-sensitive global segment. Open-source strategies aid adoption but limit monetization, as deployments via third-party platforms (e.g., AWS Bedrock, Alibaba Cloud) may not generate direct revenue for model creators. The industry is thus moving towards "open-weight + community license" models with revenue-sharing to improve unit economics. Internationally, the focus is shifting from "token maximization" to ROI-driven enterprise adoption, particularly in non-U.S. markets. Major cloud platforms are integrating Chinese models (e.g., DeepSeek, MiniMax). Using a competitive framework based on pricing power, cost advantage, and financial strength, Goldman Sachs identifies **Zhipu AI** and **DeepSeek** as leaders in foundational text models, and **ByteDance** (with Seedance) leading in multimodal/video generation. **MiniMax** and **Kuaishou** are also rated favorably. The firm forecasts China's AI model API/subscription revenue growing from ~RMB 35bn (2026E) to RMB 879bn by 2030.

marsbit57m ago

Goldman Sachs Report Deconstructs the Competitive Landscape of China's AI Large Models: Who Will Be the Long-Term Winner?

marsbit57m ago

Trading

Spot

Hot Articles

What is $BITCOIN

DIGITAL GOLD ($BITCOIN): A Comprehensive Analysis Introduction to DIGITAL GOLD ($BITCOIN) DIGITAL GOLD ($BITCOIN) is a blockchain-based project operating on the Solana network, which aims to combine the characteristics of traditional precious metals with the innovation of decentralized technologies. While it shares a name with Bitcoin, often referred to as “digital gold” due to its perception as a store of value, DIGITAL GOLD is a separate token designed to create a unique ecosystem within the Web3 landscape. Its goal is to position itself as a viable alternative digital asset, although specifics regarding its applications and functionalities are still developing. What is DIGITAL GOLD ($BITCOIN)? DIGITAL GOLD ($BITCOIN) is a cryptocurrency token explicitly designed for use on the Solana blockchain. In contrast to Bitcoin, which provides a widely recognized value storage role, this token appears to focus on broader applications and characteristics. Notable aspects include: Blockchain Infrastructure: The token is built on the Solana blockchain, known for its capacity to handle high-speed and low-cost transactions. Supply Dynamics: DIGITAL GOLD has a maximum supply capped at 100 quadrillion tokens (100P $BITCOIN), although details regarding its circulating supply are currently undisclosed. Utility: While precise functionalities are not explicitly outlined, there are indications that the token could be utilized for various applications, potentially involving decentralized applications (dApps) or asset tokenization strategies. Who is the Creator of DIGITAL GOLD ($BITCOIN)? At present, the identity of the creators and development team behind DIGITAL GOLD ($BITCOIN) remains unknown. This situation is typical among many innovative projects within the blockchain space, particularly those aligning with decentralized finance and meme coin phenomena. While such anonymity may foster a community-driven culture, it intensifies concerns about governance and accountability. Who are the Investors of DIGITAL GOLD ($BITCOIN)? The available information indicates that DIGITAL GOLD ($BITCOIN) does not have any known institutional backers or prominent venture capital investments. The project seems to operate on a peer-to-peer model focused on community support and adoption rather than traditional funding routes. Its activity and liquidity are primarily situated on decentralized exchanges (DEXs), such as PumpSwap, rather than established centralized trading platforms, further highlighting its grassroots approach. How DIGITAL GOLD ($BITCOIN) Works The operational mechanics of DIGITAL GOLD ($BITCOIN) can be elaborated on based on its blockchain design and network attributes: Consensus Mechanism: By leveraging Solana’s unique proof-of-history (PoH) combined with a proof-of-stake (PoS) model, the project ensures efficient transaction validation contributing to the network's high performance. Tokenomics: While specific deflationary mechanisms have not been extensively detailed, the vast maximum token supply implies that it may cater to microtransactions or niche use cases that are still to be defined. Interoperability: There exists the potential for integration with Solana’s broader ecosystem, including various decentralized finance (DeFi) platforms. However, the details regarding specific integrations remain unspecified. Timeline of Key Events Here is a timeline that highlights significant milestones concerning DIGITAL GOLD ($BITCOIN): 2023: The initial deployment of the token occurs on the Solana blockchain, marked by its contract address. 2024: DIGITAL GOLD gains visibility as it becomes available for trading on decentralized exchanges like PumpSwap, allowing users to trade it against SOL. 2025: The project witnesses sporadic trading activity and potential interest in community-led engagements, although no noteworthy partnerships or technical advancements have been documented as of yet. Critical Analysis Strengths Scalability: The underlying Solana infrastructure supports high transaction volumes, which could enhance the utility of $BITCOIN in various transaction scenarios. Accessibility: The potential low trading price per token could attract retail investors, facilitating wider participation due to fractional ownership opportunities. Risks Lack of Transparency: The absence of publicly known backers, developers, or an audit process may yield skepticism regarding the project's sustainability and trustworthiness. Market Volatility: The trading activity is heavily reliant on speculative behavior, which can result in significant price volatility and uncertainty for investors. Conclusion DIGITAL GOLD ($BITCOIN) emerges as an intriguing yet ambiguous project within the rapidly evolving Solana ecosystem. While it attempts to leverage the “digital gold” narrative, its departure from Bitcoin's established role as a store of value underscores the need for a clearer differentiation of its intended utility and governance structure. Future acceptance and adoption will likely depend on addressing the current opacity and defining its operational and economic strategies more explicitly. Note: This report encompasses synthesised information available as of October 2023, and developments may have transpired beyond the research period.

717 Total ViewsPublished 2025.05.13Updated 2025.05.13

What is $BITCOIN

Discussions

Welcome to the HTX Community. Here, you can stay informed about the latest platform developments and gain access to professional market insights. Users' opinions on the price of BTC (BTC) are presented below.

活动图片