Re:Statement on Cryptocurrencies and Initial Coin Offerings
by Alex3917 on Monday December 11, 2017 @10:50PM
(#15902866)
> I don’t understand why being premined makes any difference?
The issue is when A) people buying the token are doing so because they expect the value to increase, and/or B) the value of the network comes from a central party or promoter rather than from the network participants. If a currency is pre-mined, then it's more likely to be a security because the network participants aren't helping to secure the network. Similarly, if the product doesn't yet exist, then it's more likely to be a security because the network participants are unlikely to be creating value.
The fact that the token may be pre-mined or the product may not yet exist doesn't inherently matter except to the extent that they make it much more likely the token fails conditions A and B.
Similarly, if Ethereum goes to proof-of-stake then it's more likely to be considered a security, but there isn't a specific law saying that proof-of-stake tokens are illegal.
The issue is when A) people buying the token are doing so because they expect the value to increase, and/or B) the value of the network comes from a central party or promoter rather than from the network participants. If a currency is pre-mined, then it's more likely to be a security because the network participants aren't helping to secure the network. Similarly, if the product doesn't yet exist, then it's more likely to be a security because the network participants are unlikely to be creating value.
The fact that the token may be pre-mined or the product may not yet exist doesn't inherently matter except to the extent that they make it much more likely the token fails conditions A and B.
Similarly, if Ethereum goes to proof-of-stake then it's more likely to be considered a security, but there isn't a specific law saying that proof-of-stake tokens are illegal.