Search results

The sale of NFTs and the interest in them has “exploded” recently. While there is a lot of information on them, it is not clear what final form they will take. There are several reasons to be uneasy, such as the prevalence of scams, but there are also reasons for optimism and confidence in NFTs. First, they solve the problem of how to own digital assets. Additionally, some of the more reliable and proven cryptoasset exchanges are offering them. However, this innovation will have difficulties reaching a wider audience until more clarity is achieved on two main issues. Therefore, this study aims to clarify what the NFT business models are, and how do they build trust.

This research attempts to identify the NFT business models with case study analysis in three stages. The first stage is a focus group, followed by 16 short case vignettes and finally four longer case studies.

The findings show that there are four NFT business models: (1) NFT creator; (2) NFT marketplace, selling creators’ NFTs; (3) company offering their own NFT (fan token) and (4) computer game with NFT sales.

This research brings the literature on business models and NFTs together to offer clarity on the proven NFT business models.

To explain the recent determination by the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) with respect to so-called “token sales” or “initial coin offerings” (ICOs) that some tokens may be securities under federal securities laws and to address other recent actions by the SEC with respect to ICOs.

Reviews the SEC’s determination that some tokens issued in an ICO may be securities under federal securities laws as outlined by the SEC’s Division of Enforcement in a “Report of Investigation Pursuant to Section 21(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934: The DAO.” Provides overview of SEC Investor Alert, Investor Bulletin, and recent comments and actions of the Staff regarding investment in ICOs and provides guidance to those interested in participating in an ICO as an investor or issuer.

These actions by the SEC make it clear that the SEC is closely monitoring the market for ICOs, and that it wants potential investors and issuers to be aware that it is watching and may take action if it believes the securities laws have been violated.

Practical overview of recent developments and guidance from experienced securities and financial services lawyers.

This paper provides a thorough examination of Socios.com, a blockchain platform that integrates token sales with the fan experience in the sports industry. The study focuses on three key aspects: the performance, bubble phenomenon and dynamics of fan tokens. The author aims to address important questions that may concern potential supporters and investors. Might sports fans incur financial losses due to their team loyalty? Is the fan token market just a passing trend? Are fan tokens driven by the behaviour of the cryptocurrency market?

This analysis aims to involve several methodologies. The author evaluates the short- and long-term performance of fan tokens by computing first-day and buy-and-hold (abnormal) returns. The author also employs the Phillips, Shi, and Yu's (PSY) real-time bubble detection method to investigate the presence of bubble phenomenon in the fan token market segment. Finally, the author examines the potential dependences between fan tokens, Chiliz and the cryptocurrency market (represented by the CCi30 index) using both Pearson/Kendall correlations and the wavelet coherence approach.

The study presents three notable contributions to the existing literature. First, the author demonstrates that investing in fan tokens to support one's favourite sports teams can lead to financial losses, whereas traders can potentially outperform the market by investing in Chiliz. Second, the author states that fan tokens were a short-lived trend, as evidenced by their decline in value after the bubble burst in 2021. Third, the findings indicate that the fan token market was influenced by the cryptocurrency market and Chiliz during periods of market downturns.

To the best of author’s knowledge, this is the first paper to conduct a comprehensive analysis of the performance, bubble phenomenon and dynamics of the token market fan segment, along with the exclusive on-platform currency, Chiliz.

To analyze the settled order of the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) against TokenLot LLC (TokenLot), which was the SEC’s first action charging a seller of digital tokens as an unregistered broker-dealer.

Analyzes the SEC’s order within the context of other recent actions by the SEC on cryptocurrencies and digital tokens and discusses future implications of the order in this area.

The SEC’s order against TokenLot as an unregistered broker-dealer was a logical next step in its enforcement activity in the cryptocurrency and digital token space.The order demonstrates that the SEC expects firms in the cryptocurrency space to use the well-established constructs of federal securities laws to evaluate their business activities to ensure those activities are legally compliant.

Practical guidance from experienced securities and financial services lawyers analyzing recent developments in a nascent area of SEC enforcement.

This chapter discusses legal considerations relating to digital assets. The legal aspects of tokenized and non-tokenized assets are evolving. Although some states have enacted specific laws or regulations for digital assets, Congress and federal agencies have been slower to craft specific rules and regulations for such assets. As a result, regulators, such as the Securities and Exchange Commission, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, and Internal Revenue Service, and market participants must apply existing guidance to digital assets. This chapter examines applying specific aspects of federal securities and tax law to digital assets. It also discusses general business law considerations for blockchain and cyber enterprises. The discussion of state law applications centers on the New York Virtual Currency License and Wyoming and Delaware crypto initiatives. This chapter does not provide a comprehensive review of all legal issues related to cryptocurrency. Each legal issue about cryptocurrency is complex and requires separate analyses.

Utility tokens are digital currencies that serve as the only accepted means of payment for services and products provided through a blockchain-based platform. They finance the development of their product or service, reward and incentivize early adopters and network promoters, align economic incentives between supply, demand, and the marketplace, and enhance network effects among all participants. Their tokenomic design consists of the rules and regulations governing a token’s issuance, distribution, allocation, and potential destruction. The chapter describes utility tokens, compares them with other types of cryptoassets, and discusses their value creation process and role in network economics. It also reviews common tokenomic designs, discusses different regulatory approaches, and provides examples of current utility token applications in decentralized applications such as decentralized finance and virtual reality platforms (metaverses).

To explain and draw conclusions from six recent bitcoin and virtual currency regulatory and law enforcement developments.

Discusses and draws conclusions from six recent, important developments: two administrative rulings from the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), recent remarks by New York State Department of Financial Services Superintendent Benjamin Lawsky, remarks by Mark Wetjen of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), a recent Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) informational sweep of crowdsales of crypto-equity, and the US Department of Justice proceedings against Trendon Shavers.

Rather than trying to stifle or control virtual currencies, US governmental entities recognize the long-term value of virtual currencies and are trying to create a regulatory regime to foster growth and development, and an atmosphere where institutional and retail investors are protected.

Provides an overview of the key United States regulatory issues facing companies engaged in Bitcoin-related businesses.

This chapter synthesizes the economics, law, and technology of security tokens and security token offerings (STOs). Security tokens are an increasingly important instrument in decentralized finance (DeFi) markets. They are blockchain-based investment contracts that are subject to securities law. Interoperability, fractional ownership, market liquidity, and rapid settlement are the main reasons security tokens are a primary catalyst for digitizing finance. The chapter empirically compares STOs with initial exchange offerings (IEOs) and initial coin offerings (ICOs). STOs take longer and raise more funding. However, controlling for other factors, the amount raised in STOs and IEOs is lower than in utility-token ICOs. These findings suggest an avenue for future research. Moreover, both the law and the technology of security tokens need to address critical challenges related to the competent jurisdiction in multinational activities and blockchain interoperability, scalability, and natural resource degradation.

The paucity of empirical research on the sales‐marketing interface necessitates a detailed exploration of linkages that can forge stronger connection between these two functions. This paper aims to explicate the boundary conditions that may affect the role played by structure, language, and process linkages in forging sales‐marketing connections, and to identify additional linkages that may play an important role in this interface.

A total of 47 sales and marketing professionals across different organizations in diverse industries were interviewed.

The research finds that certain boundary conditions (e.g. organizational hierarchy, time horizon) may influence how structure, language, and process linkages may operate in this interface. It also extends linkage repertoire by identifying two critical linkages: social and philosophical. Its managerial contribution lies in stressing the importance of: vertical and horizontal communication bridges; marketing's flexibility; interpersonal relationships; and the philosophical bond between the two functions, in forging stronger connections.

This is one of the few qualitative empirical investigations of the sales‐marketing interface. It broadens one's understanding of sales‐marketing linkages, adds to linkage repertoire, and extends the interface literature.

This paper aims to elaborate on the optimization of two particular cryptocurrency portfolios in a mean-variance framework. In general, cryptocurrencies can be classified to as coins and tokens where the first can be thought of as a medium of exchange and the latter accounts for security or utility tokens depending upon its design.

Against this backdrop, this empirical study distinguishes, in particular, between pure coin and token portfolios. Both portfolios are optimized by maximizing the Sharpe ratio and, subsequently, compared with alternative portfolio strategies.

The empirical findings demonstrate that the maximum utility portfolio of coins, with a risk aversion of λ = 10, outweighs alternative frameworks. The portfolios optimized by maximizing the Sharpe ratio for both coins and tokens indicate a rather poor performance. Testing the maximized utility for different levels of risk aversion confirms the findings of this empirical study and confers them more robustness.

Further investigation is strongly recommended as tokens represent a new phenomenon in the cryptocurrency universe, for which only a limited amount of data are available, which restricts the sampling. Furthermore, future study is to include more sophisticated optimization models using different constraints in portfolio creation.

In light of the persistently substantial volatility in cryptocurrency markets, the empirical findings assert that portfolio managers are advised to construct a global minimum variance portfolio. In the absence of sophisticated optimization models, private investors can invest according to the market values of cryptocurrencies. Despite minor differences in the risk and reward ratios of the portfolios tested, tokens tend to be more speculative, especially, if the Tether token is excluded, which may require enhanced supervision and investor protection by regulating authorities.

As the current literature investigates on diversification effects of blended cryptocurrency portfolios rather than making an explicit distinction, this paper reflects one of the first to explore the investability and role of diversifying coins and tokens using a classic Markowitz approach.