Here's a link to the actual SEC press release, not the dissent over the action by two of the commissioners: https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2023-163
SEC charges Impact Theory for unregistered offering of NFTs
81–90 of 257 posts
Re: SEC charges Impact Theory for unregistered offering of NFTs
#82Re: SEC charges Impact Theory for unregistered offering of NFTs
#83Earlier quoted context omitted.
@dang
FWIW both are worth reading. Can we make it a text post with both the main PR and the dissent?
Eventually we're going to build something for aggregating related URLs.
Re: SEC charges Impact Theory for unregistered offering of NFTs
#84The 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.
See also https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37300225 and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37300237.
Re: SEC charges Impact Theory for unregistered offering of NFTs
#85Earlier quoted context omitted.
FWIW both are worth reading. Can we make it a text post with both the main PR and the dissent?
I think it's usually sufficient to include the previous URL in the comment explaining that we changed the URL. Eventually we're going to build something for aggregating related URLs.
Re: SEC charges Impact Theory for unregistered offering of NFTs
#86Its great to see commissioner Mark T Uyeda also dissenting, because for some time it was only Hester Pierce that would take these views on digital assets, and for her views to be elevated to head commissioner it requires a Republican President to make that nomination, as she is Republican. There are many people that are not Republican that would aim to get her appointed and do whatever it takes. Which means casting a…
https://www.sec.gov/news/statement/peirce-uyeda-statement-nf...
Re: SEC charges Impact Theory for unregistered offering of NFTs
#87Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Federal Trade Commission is fully equipped to handle consumer fraud.
But if it's not a security, is it fraud? If I sell you a hand drawn stick figure for $100, and you buy it because it's "art", then there's no rug to pull. You bought it, and it doesn't matter to the artist whether the resale value goes up or down. If it goes down, it's still not fraud. But if I sell you a hand drawn stick figure for $100, and you buy it with the mutual expectation that it will eventually be worth mor…
Re: SEC charges Impact Theory for unregistered offering of NFTs
#88Re: SEC charges Impact Theory for unregistered offering of NFTs
#89Its great to see commissioner Mark T Uyeda also dissenting, because for some time it was only Hester Pierce that would take these views on digital assets, and for her views to be elevated to head commissioner it requires a Republican President to make that nomination, as she is Republican. There are many people that are not Republican that would aim to get her appointed and do whatever it takes. Which means casting a…
is that truly a requirement, or do you mean realistically it would not happen because of party politics?
Re: SEC charges Impact Theory for unregistered offering of NFTs
#90The 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.
I don’t want to think of my shirt as a sellable asset.