Search results

To analyze and draw conclusions from the “Framework for ‘Investment Contract’ Analysis of Digital Assets” (the “Framework”), released by the US Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) on April 3, 2019, and the SEC’s corresponding no-action letter to TurnKey Jet, Inc. (“TKJ”), which is the SEC’s first no-action letter publicly agreeing with the view that the digital asset described therein is not a security.

Explains how the Framework assists market participants in analyzing whether a digital asset is a security, by applying the Howey factors for identifying an investment contract. Discusses the SEC’s TKJ Letter, highlighting the factors the SEC emphasized in its analysis of the Framework.

While largely reiterating prior guidance, the Framework provides a helpful overview of the SEC’s views on when a digital asset is a security and how to properly analyze the prongs of Howey with respect to digital assets. The Framework also leaves certain important questions unanswered, including, for example, whether digital assets distributed by means of a so-called “Airdrop” are securities under the Framework, and the extent to which the Framework is meant to interact with digital assets that were issued or otherwise operate on platforms that are primarily overseas.

Expert guidance from lawyers with broad experience in financial services, securities, investment funds, derivatives, and digital assets regulation and compliance.

The purpose of this paper is to review the first two years of the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) efforts to regulate cryptosecurities to assess the trends of that regulation.

The authors review the SEC’s official pronouncements and informal statements about, and its enforcement actions against participants in, various early experiments in cryptosecurities.

The SEC has been evolving how to apply the US securities laws to cryptosecurities since its report on The DAO two years ago. When “coins” on a blockchain meet the traditional Howey Test, it is easy to categorize them as “securities.” However, the bedrock regulatory principle that some person must account for violations is frustrated by automated blockchain transactions, where no human is in control. This tension risks a “moral crumple zone” arising around cryptosecurities, in which persons might become liable for violations that they cannot fairly be said to have caused.

This paper provides valuable information and insights about the beginnings of US regulation of cryptosecurities and how the evolution of that regulation is trending after two years.

Free banking theory, as developed in Adam Smith’s 1776 treatise, “The Wealth of Nations” is a useful tool in determining the extent to which the “invisible hand of the market” should prevail in regulatory policy. The purpose of this study is to provide a timely review of the literature, evaluating the theory’s relevance to regulation of financial technology generally and cryptocurrencies (cryptos) specifically.

The methodology is qualitative, applying free banking theory as developed in the literature to technology-defined environments. Recent legislative developments in the regulation of cryptocurrencies in the UK, European Union and the USA, are drawn upon.

Participants in volatile cryptocurrency markets should bear the consequences of inadvisable investments in accordance with free banking theory. The decentralised nature of cryptocurrencies and the exchanges on which these are traded militate against coordinated oversight by central banks, supporting a qualified free banking approach. Differences regarding statutory definitions of cryptos as units of exchange, tokens or investment securities and the propensity of these to transition between categories across the business cycle render attempts at concerted classification at the international level problematic. Prevention of criminality through extension of Suspicious Activity Reporting to exchanges and intermediaries should be the principal objective of policymakers, rather than definitions of evolving products that risk stifling technological innovation.

The study proposes that instead of a traditional regulatory approach to cryptos, which emphasises holders’ safety and compensation, a free banking approach combined with a focus on criminality would be a more effective and pragmatic way forward.