Re:The SEC has charged two initial coin offerings with defra...
by stale2002 on Saturday September 30, 2017 @04:17PM
(#15374805)
Yes, ITOs would fit the bill, IMO, of a security.
Here is the big reason why. If you are creating an ITO, you are implicitly promising that you will provide tacos to someone in the future.
It is a taco future. You can't just create futures, even taco futures, without falling under regulations.
THAT is the problem with ICOs. Look, if you just want to sell a cryptocurrency, that has ALREADY been created, you won't run into any issues with the law. There is nothing illegal about premining, and selling a crytocurrency.
The problem is when you say "This cyptocurrency represents stake in something that doesn't exist yet, but I totally promise that it will exist in the future". No. Thats a future. Thats a security. If it doesn't exist yet, you can't sell it without falling under security laws.
Here is the big reason why. If you are creating an ITO, you are implicitly promising that you will provide tacos to someone in the future.
It is a taco future. You can't just create futures, even taco futures, without falling under regulations.
THAT is the problem with ICOs. Look, if you just want to sell a cryptocurrency, that has ALREADY been created, you won't run into any issues with the law. There is nothing illegal about premining, and selling a crytocurrency.
The problem is when you say "This cyptocurrency represents stake in something that doesn't exist yet, but I totally promise that it will exist in the future". No. Thats a future. Thats a security. If it doesn't exist yet, you can't sell it without falling under security laws.