沒有, 不是所有感染控制主任為證券

萊傑納米小號 - 安全硬件錢包

保羅·帕拉在艾倫代爾律師, 新澤西州, 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 (感染控制主任) were not actually selling securities.

寧, 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.” 和, 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 於2月. 5, 高盛’ global 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. 波紋a 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. 證券交易委員會 (SEC) scrutiny. That is simply not the case.

確實, 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 代幣, it now trades on 18 exchanges where individuals can buy the XRP coin. 確實, after raising nearly $94 百萬 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 上調 $35 百萬 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

總而言之, 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, 公司, et al., Case No. 18-cv-00671 (N.D. Cal. 一月 30, 2018)Paige v. Bitconnect Intern. PLC, et al., Case No. 3:18-CV-58-JHM (W.D. Ky. 一月 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 potential” 那 “seems extraordinaryfor blockchain-based businesses.

然而, 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 上月 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.

換一種說法, 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.

換一種說法, utility tokens may be a good idea after all.

Umbrellas 通過存在Shutterstock圖片

在blockchain新聞領導者, CoinDesk致力於提供一個開放的平台上,通過鼓勵撰寫文章blockchain萬物對話和討論. 因此, 在這篇文章中表達的觀點是作者自己的,不一定反映CoinDesk的觀點.

有關如何提交意見或分析文章的細節, 查看我們的 編輯協作指南 或電子郵件 news@coindesk.com.

HTTPS://www.coindesk.com/no-not-icos-securities/

請關注並喜歡我們:
萊傑納米小號 - 安全硬件錢包

發表評論

本網站使用的Akismet,以減少垃圾郵件. 了解您的意見如何處理數據.