News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:SEC tightens the noose on ICO-funded startups by gamblor956 on Wednesday October 10, 2018 @05:19PM (#18189004)
Courts don't create the law, they interpret it (...except in India, where the Supreme Court actually does make laws). The Legislature writes the law.

A security doesn't require a common enterprise, it simply requires that one thing represents an interest in something else. The underlying asset is usually financial or intangible in nature, but that isn't required. There are more specific rules and exceptions, but those vary by jurisdiction.

Re:SEC tightens the noose on ICO-funded startups by CaptainZapp on Thursday October 11, 2018 @01:09AM (#18191081)
A security doesn't require a common enterprise, it simply requires that one thing represents an interest in something else.

True, it even works with past and future music royalties.

David Bowie (together with his financial manager and an investment banker) was probably the first to come up with securisation of non-tangible assets.[1]

It's a fascinating story.

[1] https://www.bbc.com/news/business-35280945

Re:SEC tightens the noose on ICO-funded startups by CryptoPunk on Wednesday October 10, 2018 @06:31PM (#18189520)
Courts create common law, which determines how statutory laws are interpreted.

>>A security doesn't require a common enterprise, it simply requires that one thing represents an interest in something else.

Investment into a common enterprise is the second prong of the Howey Test.

Re:SEC tightens the noose on ICO-funded startups by gamblor956 on Wednesday October 10, 2018 @07:55PM (#18189970)
True, but the Howey test is not the the sole test of determining what a security is. Context matters.
Re:SEC tightens the noose on ICO-funded startups by Svexar on Wednesday October 10, 2018 @11:45PM (#18190861)
Courts don't create laws. They just come up with new rules that you can't break without going to prison. No laws, though.