If your argument is that bitcoin is not a security because it's a currency and that it continues to fall under SEC virtual currency guidelines, then wouldn't buying bitcoin be a forex transaction?
A security is: "a thing deposited or pledged as a guarantee of the fulfillment of an undertaking or the repayment of a loan, to be forfeited in case of default."
Bitcoin is an entity unto itself I can buy bitcoin and trade that DIRECTLY for goods - something that is impossible with securities. If bearer bonds were still a thing there might be some argument around directly transferable securities but that is no longer the case.
If I buy on forex (in pips) I can not trade those to a merchant directly for anything - bitcoin can be purchased at an exchange (not a market but an exchange) and used to acquire goods directly.
Lets look at the justification that the article gives:
"A study conducted by LendEDU last year found that roughly 18 percent of Bitcoin investors used a credit card to fund the purchases. Of those, 22 percent couldn’t pay off their balance after buying the digital coin."
What percentage of people can't pay their CC after a cash advance in a foreign country? How about after making a comparable major purchase. If we take those facets into account that %22 probably isn't far outside the industry average.
There were lots of paths Wells (or the other banks listed) could have taken - this was not a good policy on the merits of what they are saying.
