Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don’t understand why being premined makes any difference? A company could easily create an equity pool and a new mineable currency, and make that currency worth a proportional amount of equity. That would very clearly fall under the umbrella of security. Similarly someone could create a premined currency and evenly distribute it to anyone who asked for it, in exchange for nothing with no guarantees about it being r…
If anyone can mine a thing for themselves (i.e. create more supply of it), then that thing is a commodity . (Gold, for example, is a commodity.) By definition, no one entity can really restrict the supply or trade of a commodity; and thus the government can't really make useful laws about what any one entity does with their holdings of a commodity. Any valuable thing that isn't a commodity, is a security. Every fiat…
Statement on Cryptocurrencies and Initial Coin Offerings
91–100 of 176 posts
Re: Statement on Cryptocurrencies and Initial Coin Offerings
#92Re: Statement on Cryptocurrencies and Initial Coin Offerings
#93Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think this is more negative for ICOs than your quotes imply. Look at this: > By and large, the structures of initial coin offerings that I have seen promoted involve the offer and sale of securities and directly implicate the securities registration requirements and other investor protection provisions of our federal securities laws. Basically, almost all ICOs so far are illegal. He says that it's possible to make…
> almost all ICOs so far are illegal. a lot of them are offering to sell you an asset that they advertise as being sure to appreciate, with the subtext that you will sell the asset at a later point for a gain. Selling something purely to be a store of value and appreciation is basically the textbook definition of a security, isn't it?
any note, stock, treasury stock, security future, bond, debenture,
evidence of indebtedness, certificate of interest or participation in
any profit-sharing agreement, collateral-trust certificate,
preorganization certificate or subscription, transferable share,
investment contract, voting-trust certificate, certificate of deposit
for a security, fractional undivided interest in oil, gas, or other
mineral rights, any put, call, straddle, option, or privilege on any
security (including a certificate of deposit) or on any group or index
of securities (including any interest therein or based on the value
thereof), or any put, call, straddle, option, or privilege entered into
on a national securities exchange relating to foreign currency, or, in
general, any interest or instrument commonly known as a “security,” or
any certificate of interest or participation in, temporary or interim
certificate for, receipt for, guarantee of, or warrant or right to
subscribe to or purchase, any of the foregoing. [1]
It's a somewhat circular definition, but my reading is that basically, anything whatsoever that gives you an ownership interest or claim on the future profits of an enterprise can be construed as a security. You can track who owns the shares of the enterprise via entries in a central ledger (the current method for most stock companies), use paper bearer certificates (traditional way), use a distributed ledger, hand out carved pieces of pottery, whatever. If it functions even remotely like a security, it's probably a security.EDIT: The Supreme Court's "Howey Test" [2], which came out of a 1946 case over complex real-estate leaseback deals, is in some respects a simpler method to determine whether something may be a investment contract, which is a security:
1. It is an investment of money
2. There is an expectation of profits from the investment
3. The investment of money is in a common enterprise
4. Any profit comes from the efforts of a promoter or third party
The Howey Test is reliable in the sense that anything satisfying those four points is extremely likely to be an investment contract and thus a security, but I believe there are probably securities that fail one or more aspects of the test but are still regulated, due to the broad statutory definition of "security" under the 1934 and 1940 Acts.[1] That's from the Investment Company Act of 1940, which seems to be definitional; there are some other definitions used elsewhere in the UCC and other Federal laws (largely from 1934), but they seem to be similar, and quite a few places punt to this definition. (Quoted in http://apps.americanbar.org/buslaw/newsletter/0014/materials... which is an annoyingly "locked" PDF that you will need to de-DRM; this is left as an exercise to the reader.)
[2] http://consumer.findlaw.com/securities-law/what-is-the-howey...
Re: Statement on Cryptocurrencies and Initial Coin Offerings
#94I think the rate of technological change will force the SEC regulatory system to adopt an RFC process open to the public (bypassing Congress), similar to IETF, and I think Direct Democracy is an inevitable outcome of such disruption.
Re: Statement on Cryptocurrencies and Initial Coin Offerings
#95Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think that is a very considered and wide ranging statement. The proof is in the pudding though. He looks like he has called out some ICO's, but until enforcement proceedings start, it is still not clear. I can't see how any pre-mined ICO, like ripple, wouldn't be treated like a security given those statements. As a long time crypto investor, even i recognise that ico's are out of control. It is my opinion that if y…
> if you can't mine it yourself, or get someone independent from the issuer to do it for you, it's a security That's not quite right. You could say that WoW Gold is "premined". You can't "mine" it yourself, and it's only issued by World of Warcraft. Same thing with Walmart gift cards and Disney Dollars. Call it money, or tokens, or scrip, but it's not a security. If you sell it to users primarialy to transact with it…
If the thing you are buying has only its intrinsic value, then it is a commodity.
An example would be a baseball card (intrinsic value only) vs. a card that entitled you to some fraction of that baseball player's future income over the course of their career. The latter isn't really something that exists, although it probably could, but if it existed it would probably be some type of security.
Re: Statement on Cryptocurrencies and Initial Coin Offerings
#96Earlier quoted context omitted.
But no actual tokens work that way because no one would get rich off them.
Volts work that way. Earn crypto for doing healthy habits. Use it to unlock new apps and courses for behavior change. It becomes a lot easier when you realize money isn't real, it's a constraint. Like oxygen, it only matters when you don't have it --- once you do, it becomes irrelevant -- a story that allows you to represent incentives to do positive deeds. https://pavlok.com/volts
Re: Statement on Cryptocurrencies and Initial Coin Offerings
#97Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think this is more negative for ICOs than your quotes imply. Look at this: > By and large, the structures of initial coin offerings that I have seen promoted involve the offer and sale of securities and directly implicate the securities registration requirements and other investor protection provisions of our federal securities laws. Basically, almost all ICOs so far are illegal. He says that it's possible to make…
> almost all ICOs so far are illegal. a lot of them are offering to sell you an asset that they advertise as being sure to appreciate, with the subtext that you will sell the asset at a later point for a gain. Selling something purely to be a store of value and appreciation is basically the textbook definition of a security, isn't it?
A tulip can be speculative, but it's not a security. A non-transferable share of stock is a security but it's not speculative.
Re: Statement on Cryptocurrencies and Initial Coin Offerings
#98Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think that is a very considered and wide ranging statement. The proof is in the pudding though. He looks like he has called out some ICO's, but until enforcement proceedings start, it is still not clear. I can't see how any pre-mined ICO, like ripple, wouldn't be treated like a security given those statements. As a long time crypto investor, even i recognise that ico's are out of control. It is my opinion that if y…
I don’t understand why being premined makes any difference? A company could easily create an equity pool and a new mineable currency, and make that currency worth a proportional amount of equity. That would very clearly fall under the umbrella of security. Similarly someone could create a premined currency and evenly distribute it to anyone who asked for it, in exchange for nothing with no guarantees about it being r…
Re: Statement on Cryptocurrencies and Initial Coin Offerings
#99An incredible display of pragmatism from our regulators. Given the commentary on HN it seems that most here want everyone involved in an ICO to be thrown in jail. ICO’s are an effective way to raise funds from a global pool of enthusiasts. The Ethereum blockchain itself was funded from an ICO, and it’s doubtful that as much money would have been raised at such advantageous terms from traditional VC for a 22 year old…
I'm not sure this argument is as strong as you seem to think it is.
Re: Statement on Cryptocurrencies and Initial Coin Offerings
#100Earlier quoted context omitted.
> almost all ICOs so far are illegal. a lot of them are offering to sell you an asset that they advertise as being sure to appreciate, with the subtext that you will sell the asset at a later point for a gain. Selling something purely to be a store of value and appreciation is basically the textbook definition of a security, isn't it?
No, your definition is based on the textbook definition of speculation, i.e., that the owner values the thing not because of its intrinsic value to him but only insofar as he can sell it to someone else later. As Kadin points out, the actual definition of a security is (basically) a claim on property or future profits, which is logically distinct. A tulip can be speculative, but it's not a security. A non-transferabl…