SEC Says It Will Not Regulate Bitcoin and Ether – ICOs Are Fair Game
The US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) just confirmed that it does not plan to regulate Bitcoin and Ether. For ICOs, it’s a different story.
Head of the SEC’s Division of Corporation Finance William Hinman just gave a speech at the Yahoo Finance All Markets Summit in San Francisco where he addressed the SEC’s stance on cryptocurrency.
“When I look at Bitcoin today, I do not see a central third party whose efforts are a key determining factor in the enterprise. The network on which Bitcoin functions is operational and appears to have been decentralized for some time, perhaps from inception. Applying the disclosure regime of the federal securities laws to the offer and resale of Bitcoin would seem to add little value…
And, as with Bitcoin, applying the disclosure regime of the federal securities laws to current transactions in Ether would seem to add little value.”
Hinman says not every ICO is necessarily a security, and the SEC’s determination relies on a number of issues.
What are some of the factors to consider in assessing whether a digital asset is offered as an investment contract and is thus a security? Primarily, consider whether a third party – be it a person, entity or coordinated group of actors – drives the expectation of a return. That question will always depend on the particular facts and circumstances, and this list is illustrative, not exhaustive:
- Is there a person or group that has sponsored or promoted the creation and sale of the digital asset, the efforts of whom play a significant role in the development and maintenance of the asset and its potential increase in value?
- Has this person or group retained a stake or other interest in the digital asset such that it would be motivated to expend efforts to cause an increase in value in the digital asset? Would purchasers reasonably believe such efforts will be undertaken and may result in a return on their investment in the digital asset?
- Has the promoter raised an amount of funds in excess of what may be needed to establish a functional network, and, if so, has it indicated how those funds may be used to support the value of the tokens or to increase the value of the enterprise? Does the promoter continue to expend funds from proceeds or operations to enhance the functionality and/or value of the system within which the tokens operate?
- Are purchasers “investing,” that is seeking a return? In that regard, is the instrument marketed and sold to the general public instead of to potential users of the network for a price that reasonably correlates with the market value of the good or service in the network?
- Does application of the Securities Act protections make sense? Is there a person or entity others are relying on that plays a key role in the profit-making of the enterprise such that disclosure of their activities and plans would be important to investors? Do informational asymmetries exist between the promoters and potential purchasers/investors in the digital asset?
- Do persons or entities other than the promoter exercise governance rights or meaningful influence?
Hinman says the SEC’s goal is to clear up confusion on whether cryptocurrencies and ICOs are securities, and is “prepared to provide more formal interpretive or no-action guidance about the proper characterization of a digital asset in a proposed use.”
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed at The Daily Hodl are not investment advice. Investors should do their due diligence before making any high-risk investments in Bitcoin or cryptocurrency. Your transfers and trades are at your own risk. Any losses you may incur are your responsibility. Please note that The Daily Hodl participates in affiliate marketing.