Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

SEC charges Impact Theory for unregistered offering of NFTs

sec.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 257 posts

Re: SEC charges Impact Theory for unregistered offering of NFTs

#71

Post by [deleted] »

ramijames wrote: post #31
jermaustin1 wrote: post #7

The concept of NFTs stored on a distributed ledger makes sense to me especially for the shitty games that sell skins. The idea they have some sort of value and can be considered a security, doesn't really. It is no different than the current in-game marketplaces that sell/resell skins from whatever game has skins this week. At what point does a thing you buy or sell become a security? Are baseball cards a security? S…

That's exactly what we've been trying to build at Ultra.io The push back from gamers has been non-stop and intense. I don't get it. They are willing to buy digital assets which can't be resold on an open market. They are not willing to buy digital assets that can. It's kind of bonkers.

[deleted]

Re: SEC charges Impact Theory for unregistered offering of NFTs

#72

Post by lukev »

yieldcrv wrote: post #48
lukev wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But what law is being broken, if NFTs aren't securities?

crypto consumers should be far more discerning than they are even the term “rug-pull” is not discerning enough, it refers to a dozen distinct behaviors, of which a few would still be illegal while the other many behaviors are just a misalignment of expectations removing liquidity? thats not illegal under either consumer or securities framework and most commonly called a “rug pull”. communities can provide their own l…

The only way to be discerning with respect to most* crypto is not to participate.

Even "succeeding" at crypto just means you sold early enough to a greater fool.

* jury still out on the couple major cryptocurrencies, though I hope they follow the same path.

Re: SEC charges Impact Theory for unregistered offering of NFTs

#73

Post by plorkyeran »

cscheid wrote: post #11
jermaustin1 wrote: post #7

The concept of NFTs stored on a distributed ledger makes sense to me especially for the shitty games that sell skins. The idea they have some sort of value and can be considered a security, doesn't really. It is no different than the current in-game marketplaces that sell/resell skins from whatever game has skins this week. At what point does a thing you buy or sell become a security? Are baseball cards a security? S…

> At what point does a thing you buy or sell become a security? Are baseball cards a security? I don’t know about baseball cards, but the way Wizards of the Coast handles their policy around rare Magic: the Gathering cards makes me think their lawyers are definitely concerned about this kind of stuff.

WotC's steadfast refusal to publicly acknowledge the secondary resale market in any way gets comical at times, but they are a good example of how you should behave if you suspect you might have accidentally created a security.

Re: SEC charges Impact Theory for unregistered offering of NFTs

#74

Post by freejazz »

playday wrote: post #25
evilantnie wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From what I'm reading here, the company misled "investors" by attaching the NFT to ownership in the company, which would be considered a security. "The order finds that Impact Theory encouraged potential investors to view the purchase of a Founder’s Key as an investment into the business, stating that investors would profit from their purchases if Impact Theory was successful in its efforts." When I purchase a baseba…

With baseball cards, You have an expectation that the MLB will continue to promote and develop Baseball as a top sport. You purchased an illegal security.

No, you don't.

Re: SEC charges Impact Theory for unregistered offering of NFTs

#75

Post by Dowwie »

tedivm wrote: post #4

The article doesn't really match the title. The SEC press release is much more informative: https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2023-163 What this article is linked to is a dissent from two of the commissioners.

the title is literally the first sentence in the article

Re: SEC charges Impact Theory for unregistered offering of NFTs

#76

Post by yieldcrv »

lukev wrote: post #72
yieldcrv wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

crypto consumers should be far more discerning than they are even the term “rug-pull” is not discerning enough, it refers to a dozen distinct behaviors, of which a few would still be illegal while the other many behaviors are just a misalignment of expectations removing liquidity? thats not illegal under either consumer or securities framework and most commonly called a “rug pull”. communities can provide their own l…

The only way to be discerning with respect to most* crypto is not to participate. Even "succeeding" at crypto just means you sold early enough to a greater fool. * jury still out on the couple major cryptocurrencies, though I hope they follow the same path.

The SEC is not the arm of the government to help you feel validated, and I think thats the crux of your dissonance

Re: SEC charges Impact Theory for unregistered offering of NFTs

#77

Post by mattdesl »

gmerc wrote: post #46
mattdesl wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There’s a lot of reasons this mechanism would be interesting for a game developer besides trust. e.g. mitigating payment processor fees. But to your question of trust, one interesting application would be in distributed & decentralized games intended to be released to the commons, see Dark Forest or Lattice.xyz. For these OSS projects, even if the original game devs decided to stop development, the community could pe…

It’s a completely made up problem for which crypto is supposedly the solution - We’ve known for 2 decades how to do skin or items exchange between games. It involves relational databases. Valve does it for their games or at least could do it at will. There’s not one unsolved technical problem here - There is zero incentive for developers, publishers and licensors (you know the people that make up the game industry) t…

thank you for the rather long and opinionated soliloquy, which fails to actually address my comment or the projects I mentioned…

Re: SEC charges Impact Theory for unregistered offering of NFTs

#78

Post by gmerc »

mattdesl wrote: post #77
gmerc wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s a completely made up problem for which crypto is supposedly the solution - We’ve known for 2 decades how to do skin or items exchange between games. It involves relational databases. Valve does it for their games or at least could do it at will. There’s not one unsolved technical problem here - There is zero incentive for developers, publishers and licensors (you know the people that make up the game industry) t…

thank you for the rather long and opinionated soliloquy, which fails to actually address my comment or the projects I mentioned…

You mean “There is lots of reasons why this would be interesting to game developers”, goes on not mentioning a single one ?

Re: SEC charges Impact Theory for unregistered offering of NFTs

#79

Post by yieldcrv »

playday wrote: post #54
post-it wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You'd best file an amicus brief with your analysis.

Unfortunately the defendant settled, instead of fighting in court like they should have.

Its also worth nothing that the SEC is losing in court, losing the support of Congress and losing the support of the White House

specifically as more people, including judges, notice this lack of distinction and the SEC’s unwillingness (and inability) to describe why there is a distinction

there is either a way to issue crypto collections and collect money for them without being a security, or all other collections sold are securities with unregistered broker dealers operating illegally and fraudulently for the past 100 years

Re: SEC charges Impact Theory for unregistered offering of NFTs

#80

Post by mattdesl »

gmerc wrote: post #78
mattdesl wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

thank you for the rather long and opinionated soliloquy, which fails to actually address my comment or the projects I mentioned…

You mean “There is lots of reasons why this would be interesting to game developers”, goes on not mentioning a single one ?

Why do I even bother to reiterate the rest of the paragraph that you did not quote? Game developers and their users are regularly exploited by App Store and payment processor fees. Transfers of ERC721 and ERC20 on an L2 is negligible by comparison:

https://l2fees.info/

Post reply on HN