Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Still1

Some more clarity from the SEC's Clayton

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

https://www.scribd.com/document/401696839/Clayton-Etheruem-Crypto-Response#from_embed

While Clayton did not reference Ethereum or any other cryptocurrency by name, he confirmed that he agrees with Hinman’s analysis of what crypto assets fall under the securities classification.

In a key section he writes:

“Your letter also asks whether I agree with certain statements concerning digital tokens in Director Hinman’s June 2018 speech. I agree that the analysis of whether a digital asset is offered or sold as a security is not static and does not strictly inhere to the instrument. A digital asset may be offered and sold initially as a security because it meets the definition of an investment contract, but that designation may change over time if the digital asset later is offered and sold in such a way that it will no longer meet that definition. I agree with Director Hinman’s explanation of how a digital asset transaction may no longer represent an investment contract if, for example, purchasers would no longer reasonably expect a person or group to carry out the essential managerial or entrepreneurial efforts. Under those circumstances, the digital asset may not represent an investment contract under the Howey framework.”

Edited by Still1
Missed a word in title

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, Still1 said:

https://www.scribd.com/document/401696839/Clayton-Etheruem-Crypto-Response#from_embed

While Clayton did not reference Ethereum or any other cryptocurrency by name, he confirmed that he agrees with Hinman’s analysis of what crypto assets fall under the securities classification.

In a key section he writes:

“Your letter also asks whether I agree with certain statements concerning digital tokens in Director Hinman’s June 2018 speech. I agree that the analysis of whether a digital asset is offered or sold as a security is not static and does not strictly inhere to the instrument. A digital asset may be offered and sold initially as a security because it meets the definition of an investment contract, but that designation may change over time if the digital asset later is offered and sold in such a way that it will no longer meet that definition. I agree with Director Hinman’s explanation of how a digital asset transaction may no longer represent an investment contract if, for example, purchasers would no longer reasonably expect a person or group to carry out the essential managerial or entrepreneurial efforts. Under those circumstances, the digital asset may not represent an investment contract under the Howey framework.”

These guys still have no balls.

Edited by TheHoff
e for o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, TheHoff said:

These guys still have no balls.

to quote our beloved new community member bob in this regards

On 3/8/2019 at 9:14 AM, BobWay said:

From my perspective this is all FUD theater staged by people who have bet on other cryptocurrencies. I wouldn't expect to see any particular XRP specific clarity announcements. The law is really funny in this regard. (IANAL) The law doesn't really care what something is. It cares what you tell people it is.

So for example, if you create an ERC20 alt coin token, then tell people that then need to get in now because the price is going to go up. You've made it a security. What's more interesting is, say you haven't actually made that ERC20 token yet. It's just a figment of your imagination. But you go ahead and tell people they need to get in now because long term you are going to create token and then give them some and the price is going to go up. Well you've still created a security even though you haven't created a token yet.

On the other hand, FinCen has issued guidance (section c) about users of virtual currency and also some clarification more recently. It's worth reading the last page to see that the SEC or the CFTC or FinCEN might be the controlling regulator depending on "the facts and circumstances" of the case.

My personal opinion is that Ripple as a company has worked very hard comply with the laws regulating every possible interpretation of "the facts and circumstances". There are compliance teams and lawyers and specialty outside council keeping everyone away from even the grey areas. There have been stories published in the press about Ripple's various meetings with regulators and Ripple participation on various financial system committees. At this point I think regulators and other authorities see more potential benefit in Ripple than in potential harm. But that's just my personal opinion.

Please keep in mind, I'm not asking you or encouraging you to buy XRP or to use Ripple technology in any way. Those are decisions everyone should make based on their own personal finances, appetite for risk, and/or need for awesome new payment technology. All I want you to take away from this, is that the team at Ripple isn't a bunch of naive idiots. I haven't met anyone who wants to risk jail time in exchange for a get rich quick scheme. Everyone I've met respects the law and feels a duty to stay compliant.

That's probably all I'll say about that

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Another one talking about Regulations , I know a lot of people don't care about the journey,  we only want the final destination and want it now . Isn't it better to get it right ? . Even though we know they're slower than other countries. Hmmm  they want to be leaders , don't just step up to the plate , start swinging.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...