In which an ICO promoter (and scammer, but I repeat myself) makes the argument that tokens are not securities and gets dunked on by a judge lucidly and at length: https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nyed.409850/gov.uscourts.nyed.409850.37.0.pdf … (It's the September 11th document here if that link expires: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6317033/united-states-v-zaslavskiy/ … )
-
Show this thread
-
The judge kicks the ultimate issue to the finder-of-fact (summary dismissals are basically "Is there no set of alleged facts which would be sufficient to satisfy legal requirements here?") but it's a brief and pretty readable application of the Howey test.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likesShow this thread -
The Howey test determines whether something is a security / security offering for the purpose of triggering the US' substantial regulations of security offerings. Are ICOs securities offerings? Spoiler alert: yes, of course they are. There is no serious dispute of that.
3 replies 4 retweets 7 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @patio11
If you actually did some research, instead of indulging in ignorant generalisations, you'd see that there's a very serious debate among ICOs about what is a security or not. For example, tokens that are used to buy data on data marketplaces are not securities.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @sparkzilla
I'm aware of the argument for utility tokens not being securities. That argument is, stripped of all pretense, is "It would be very inconvenient if utility tokens were securities, because then we'd have to admit this is entirely illegal."
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
The Loch Ness monster, an end-user for FileCoin who did not invest in the hope of price appreciation, and Bigfoot all belong to the same reference class... and if there is one of them that I'm not sure about it is Nessie.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.