Re:“But the SEC let us go public” and other flawed arguments...
by yieldcrv on Tuesday June 13, 2023 @04:51PM
(#36317065)
> the card manufacturer could cease to exist without the success of the enterprise being impacted.
while a promoter, sponsor, or other third party could pop up at any time.
it says nothing about manufacturer or issuer for that prong of the howey test.
and the same is true for all of the tokens listed in the case against Coinbase.
I guess your argument is based on looking for differences to support your worldview instead of looking for similarities, and its not clear if you're aware of the similarities.
The "manufacturer" disappearing from tokens makes them more scarce in many cases. Their functionality remains the same.
another thing you might not be aware of is that the SEC is aware of this. Other commissioners - specifically Hester Pierce - and enforcement division personnel has made this observation, the people calling the shots in the enforcement division and the head commission are avoiding this because it breaks their whole framework if the courts really feel compelled to break this down more holistically. Thats why their approach to unilaterally calling things "evidence" when they haven't even proved they are evidence is a weak evolution of their practice. Prolonging an inevitable challenge to their authority and aspects of their existence.
while a promoter, sponsor, or other third party could pop up at any time.
it says nothing about manufacturer or issuer for that prong of the howey test.
and the same is true for all of the tokens listed in the case against Coinbase.
I guess your argument is based on looking for differences to support your worldview instead of looking for similarities, and its not clear if you're aware of the similarities.
The "manufacturer" disappearing from tokens makes them more scarce in many cases. Their functionality remains the same.
another thing you might not be aware of is that the SEC is aware of this. Other commissioners - specifically Hester Pierce - and enforcement division personnel has made this observation, the people calling the shots in the enforcement division and the head commission are avoiding this because it breaks their whole framework if the courts really feel compelled to break this down more holistically. Thats why their approach to unilaterally calling things "evidence" when they haven't even proved they are evidence is a weak evolution of their practice. Prolonging an inevitable challenge to their authority and aspects of their existence.