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

141–150 of 257 posts

Re: SEC charges Impact Theory for unregistered offering of NFTs

#141

Post by maerF0x0 »

TylerE wrote: post #133
dcolkitt wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> When I purchase a baseball card, I do not have the expectation that there is any additional value attached to the baseball card beyond what the collector's market will pay. What about music royalties rights? Those are almost always purchased with expectation of profit. Those are even explicitly marketed on the basis of how big an artist is going to be. Yet the SEC does not consider them securities https://www.sec.g…

That’s IP law, not investment.

It's an interesting intersection because those rights produce an income stream that can be evaluated like a bond.

Re: SEC charges Impact Theory for unregistered offering of NFTs

#142

Post by kranke155 »

IanCal wrote: post #116
Animats wrote: post #107

NFTs were supposed to be an end-run around the Howey Test. ICOs were clearly securities offerings, and the SEC shut down most of those. NFTs were specifically designed to evade that test, by claiming they were really "digital artworks". This one, though, was clearly marketed as Make Money Fast. The Securities Act of 1934 has a "duck test" definition of security - if it is marketed, bought, sold, and held as a money-m…

> The Securities Act of 1934 has a "duck test" definition of security - if it is marketed, bought, sold, and held as a money-making thing, it's a security That doesn't seem right. You're missing a really fundamental part of what makes a security a security. Let's steal the cut phrase from investopedia > an investment contract, for the purposes of the Securities Act means a contract, transaction or scheme whereby a pe…

People either self organised or were organised around discord chats with the purpose of pumping the price

Re: SEC charges Impact Theory for unregistered offering of NFTs

#143

Post by bigger_cheese »

vkou wrote: post #97
plorkyeran wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Is there any chance you, or someone else with knowledge of this could elaborate?

In the case of Magic the Gathering in the 90's (the early days of MTG), Wizards of the Coast released a print run of cards the "Chronicles" set which contained reprints of cards from the earliest days of the game.

This caused a large controversy because the chronicles print run was massively larger than earlier print runs and suddenly there was an influx of cards in circulation where previously due to the limited print runs of the early sets these cards were exceptionally rare. This tanked the value of the secondary card market.

Due to the bad PR and negative attention this caused at the time WotC ended up publishing "The Reserved list" a list containing around 550 cards which they guarantee will never be reprinted.

This means for an iconic MTG card like "Black Lotus" there is a limited number of these cards in circulation and no new Black Lotuses will ever be printed.

The reserved list somewhat mollified the people that were baying for Wotc's blood at the time but now 30 years later it is more or less regarded as a mistake. There are a lot of armchair lawyers etc speculating on if they could ever renege on the reserve list and if it even represents an enforceable contract. WotC have basically refused to comment (possibly lawyers have told them not too).

Re: SEC charges Impact Theory for unregistered offering of NFTs

#144

Post by sroussey »

dumbfounder wrote: post #118
Animats wrote: post #107

NFTs were supposed to be an end-run around the Howey Test. ICOs were clearly securities offerings, and the SEC shut down most of those. NFTs were specifically designed to evade that test, by claiming they were really "digital artworks". This one, though, was clearly marketed as Make Money Fast. The Securities Act of 1934 has a "duck test" definition of security - if it is marketed, bought, sold, and held as a money-m…

Care to offer some evidence of that? I haven't heard that and I am in the vertical. I agree that Impact Theory was selling securities, and I think it's pretty clear. But bored apes a security? I don't think many share that opinion. How is it any different than art or pokemon cards? People buy both all the time with the expectation they go up in price.

Do the Pokémon card makers make money continuously as the cards change hands?

Re: SEC charges Impact Theory for unregistered offering of NFTs

#146

Post by maerF0x0 »

I really enjoy a lot of Tom Bilyeu's content, but I've noticed he seems to lack a filter for great ideas from charlatans. And in some regards fair enough, it can be hard, but he's also building a brand and company around some folks who seem to be exaggerating their claims. For example Raoul Pal.

Re: SEC charges Impact Theory for unregistered offering of NFTs

#147

Post by polygamous_bat »

foota wrote: post #100
yieldcrv wrote: post #3

Its 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…

You're living in an alternate reality if you think the leadership of the SEC will move the needle on the election.

No, but he is hoping that people's distaste of the republican party be knee-jerky enough to allow him to continue hucking his magic beans.

Re: SEC charges Impact Theory for unregistered offering of NFTs

#148

Post by bandrami »

junofan wrote: post #114
carabiner wrote: post #101

NFT was just all fake volume... Sell an NFT to yourself for $1m, boom, you now own a $1m asset. Then list it for $100k for the next sucker.

How does that work for larger collections? If there’s a market, won’t the market find a price?

Eventually. The problem is the volume of non-wash trades on a lot of crypto is so embarrassingly low as to not do any real price discovery.

Re: SEC charges Impact Theory for unregistered offering of NFTs

#149

Post by yieldcrv »

polygamous_bat wrote: post #147
foota wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're living in an alternate reality if you think the leadership of the SEC will move the needle on the election.

No, but he is hoping that people's distaste of the republican party be knee-jerky enough to allow him to continue hucking his magic beans.

Its nice to see that it won’t matter which party as more commissioners will stop getting in the way of magic beans

Re: SEC charges Impact Theory for unregistered offering of NFTs

#150

Post by _trampeltier »

sroussey wrote: post #144
dumbfounder wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Care to offer some evidence of that? I haven't heard that and I am in the vertical. I agree that Impact Theory was selling securities, and I think it's pretty clear. But bored apes a security? I don't think many share that opinion. How is it any different than art or pokemon cards? People buy both all the time with the expectation they go up in price.

Do the Pokémon card makers make money continuously as the cards change hands?

Special edition sneaker for sure. How can a sneaker cost 10'000$, 100'000$, 1'000'000$?

https://luxe.digital/lifestyle/style/most-expensive-sneakers...

Post reply on HN