Is important to understand how bitcoin is a global tool, and not only a USA tool. And each country is in its right to see bitcoin as the way it works better for them. As a good example, we can see how El Salvador decide to make bitcoin a coin, and that works fine for them, but for other countries, Bitcoin is a Digital Asset or a Security... So, it depends on each country, we don't really have global laws for cryptos yet.
Exactly. The very reason bitcoin couldn't be considered a security is due to the fact that it is decentralized, and therefore not released and maintained by any known organization unlike most Altcoins on the market right now, which as stated by some here are already becoming more and more centralized, with some even being built in the PoS network instead of the conventional PoW version. In any case, I think this is for the best, because at least bitcoin's not gonna be the center of their regulation efforts, or at least I think.
Bitcoin has some features that make it similar to securities and I'm sure many people use it like security. For example, it is often seen as an investment, it can be traded on third-party platforms (exchanges), people expect Bitcoin to rise in power, and there are Bitcoin funds that can manage one's holdings (although using them is completely optional). But, as _act_ pointed out, there are also notable distinctions that make Bitcoin different from securities. Overall, I think it's reasonable SEC doesn't treat Bitcoin as a security, and it's probably for the best because otherwise Bitcoin would have more oversight, be more regulated (at least, in the US).
It is basically a form of security without the label, much like Pluto failing to be classified as a planet due to failing on some criteria. But I digress, bitcoin could operate with or without the securities classification, arguably even better than if it were to be considered a security.
