Non, Tous les bureaux de pays sont des titres

USI Tech plus facile l'investissement passif Bitcoin

Paul est un avocat Paray à Allendale, New Jersey, focused on privacy and technology matters.

In his Feb. 8 opinion piece for CoinDesk, Santander’s Julio Faura suggests thatutility tokens are a bad ideabecause it would be alie to ourselvesto suggest initial coin offerings (ICOs) were not actually selling securities.

Plutôt, in Faura’s opinionwe should collectively work on a framework to build a clearly defined scheme for ICOs, recognizing from the very beginning that they are securities.” Et, thisICO process should be designed in collaboration with regulators to comply with securities law.

Faura’s opinion piece does not exist in a vacuum. In a report dated Feb. 5, Goldman Sachsglobal head of investment research suggests that investors in ICOs could possibly lose their entire investmentswhich ties to Faura’s underlying premise that ICOs should be regulatedto protect investors.

It is not clear how his proposed hybrid solution would ever get implemented, given it requires complete buy-in from capital markets and regulators, so it would be a non-starter from day one.

Why would existing financial institutions and regulators scuttle existing methods of raising capital or attempt to squeeze ICOs under traditional securities law, even if considered a sale of securities?

Answer: They would not. Ondulationa company partially funded by Santander InnoVenturesoffers a glimpse of how traditional banks and financial markets will compete using blockchain technology andcoins.

Faura’s opinion piece paints all ICOs with the same brush by claiming each one of them actually offers securities subject to U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SECONDE) scrutiny. That is simply not the case.

Indeed, does Faura wonder why the SEC has not knocked on Ripple’s XRPdigital assetdoor? Even though there was no formal ICO to launch that arguably centralized jeton, it now trades on 18 exchanges where individuals can buy the XRP coin. Indeed, after raising nearly $94 million of venture capital, Ripple probably does not need an ICO.

One ICO left untouched by the SEC wasgate-keepedby the law firm of Perkins Coie and involved the sale of a utility token that raised $35 million in under a minute’s time. Brave’s token creates a digital advertising ecosystem tied to consumer attentionwhich is why it is dubbed the Basic Attention Token. Such an ecosystem would certainly be an upgrade from the current digital advertising scheme wedded to the web ecosystem of 1995.

Reasonable regulation

All told, it seems that the SEC and other regulatory bodies have actually taken a very measured approach in this areaaggressively focusing on obvious fraudsters first in order to deter subsequent fraudsters, while letting the technology play out a bit in the wild.

Not surprisingly, the plaintiff’s bar has been doing a good job picking up the slack in those instances when the SEC has not yet moved. See Davy v. Paragon Coin, Inc., et al., Case No. 18-cv-00671 (N.D. Cal. janvier 30, 2018) et Paige v. Bitconnect Intern. PLC, et al., Case No. 3:18-CV-58-JHM (W.D. Ky. janvier 29, 2018).

Recent indicators seem to back this interpretation of the SEC’s ICO position.

On February 6, SEC chairman Jay Clayton acknowledged before the Senate Banking Committee that the potential derived from blockchain wasvery significant.His co-witness, Commodity Futures Trading Commission chairman Christopher Giancarlo, went so far as to say there wasenormous potentialthatseems extraordinaryfor blockchain-based businesses.

Encore, during his testimony, Chairman Clayton said the SEC would continue tocrack down hardon fraud and manipulation involving ICOs offering an unregistered security. This is consistent with prior messaging given that Chairman Clayton requested en décembre 11 that the SEC’s Enforcement Divisionvigorouslyenforce and recommend action against ICOs that may be in violation of the federal securities laws.

Chairman Clayton said the SEC wasworking the beat hardto crack down on ICOs, but chose not to answer a question posed of him by Senator Mark Warner of Virginia, namely whether the SEC willgo backand scrutinize earlier ICOs.

En d'autres termes, there may be some ICOs, like the one for BAT, that the SEC will not attack, notwithstanding Clayton’s comment in the hearing thatevery ICO I’ve seen is a security.”

The prospect that some 2017 ICOs raising hundreds of millions of dollars will not be addressed by the SEC provides a clearnudge winkthat not all ICOs come under SEC regulatory control.

As with XRP and BAT, in the future, there will likely be many more tokens built on disruptive blockchain initiatives that escape SEC scrutiny given they are not perceived as securities.

The fact that the SEC has not yet moved on themdespite moving against Munchee, Inc. weeks after the Munchee MUN offeringsignals the SEC will temper its enforcement activities when faced with a disruptive blockchain initiative that begets true intrinsic value.

En d'autres termes, utility tokens may be a good idea after all.

Umbrellas l'image via Shutterstock

Le leader dans les nouvelles blockchain, CoinDesk strives to offer an open platform for dialogue and discussion on all things blockchain by encouraging contributed articles. En tant que tel, the opinions expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the view of CoinDesk.

For more details on how you can submit an opinion or analysis article, view our Editorial Collaboration Guide or email

USI Tech Transformez votre vie avec l'investissement Bitcoin plus facile et la plus passive

Laisser un commentaire