4 ms·

It doesn't matter if Ethereum is a crypto-decentralized-blockchain-p2p-network-thingamagig. If the Ethereum Foundation sold their thing to US residents, it is u

by hudon 9y ago

It doesn't matter if Ethereum is a crypto-decentralized-blockchain-p2p-network-thingamagig. If the Ethereum Foundation sold their thing to US residents, it is under the purview of the SEC. The only question is if the Ethereum Foundation's token sale passes the Howey Test. An analysis of this must be done like was done in their report of the DAO. I'm not qualified to do this analysis, which is why I ask. I know they said Bitcoin was not a security but that's all I know.

vasilipupkin 9y ago
If you read the sec document carefully enough, they singled out the DAO because it's unambiguously a security. Shares in a thingymajig blockchain blah blah corp are still shares, therefore, securities. Most tokens are not shares and have uses other than profit motive, therefore, they are not securities
- hudon 9y ago
  More like, if you read the SEC document carefully enough, you'll see that they applied the 4 prongs of the Howey test to theDAO token and defended each prong with arguments and evidence. They'll probably do the same thing for Ethereum (but not necessarily come to the same conclusion on each prong). Saying "it has other uses than profit" is not sufficient since you'd have to back it up with meaningful evidence (what are the actual uses that investors are getting out of it?)
  - maehwasu 9y ago
    > Saying "it has other uses than profit" is not sufficient (does not address all 4 criteria) and you do not back it up with evidence (what are the actual uses that investors are getting out of it?) This true, but the 4 criteria are an AND, not an OR.
52-6F-62 9y ago
Again, the Howey test and SEC rulings only apply to American entities/business. So, if it may impact the status of the Ethereum Foundation (barring all other questions) in the United States, but it won't impact it elsewhere at all except maybe in sentiment. Lately the United States' power of influence in economic matters has decreased, so I don't see that being a major deficit in the long run with regard to a technology that's being investigated and accepted internationally otherwise.
- hudon 9y ago
  > SEC rulings only apply to American entities/business This is wrong. SEC rulings apply as soon as your investors are US residents. [1] I know neither of us are lawyers, but at least back up what you claim if it might put people's money at risk. [1] https://www.sec.gov/divisions/corpfin/internatl/foreign-private-issuers-overview.shtml https://www.sec.gov/divisions/corpfin/internatl/foreign-priv...
  - 52-6F-62 9y ago
    I tried to be clear, but I can see where there is possible ambiguity. I said business, not businesses. The impact would be on their existence within the US, but not internationally. Not with regard to the SEC alone. edit: Okay, you started as snark, then tightened it up a bit after an edit, but my point still stands.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - hudon 9y ago
      I see what you're saying: people not in the US should not be concerned. But that's not what the post is about and that's not what my question is about. The question is whether or not what the Ethereum Foundation sold to US residents are securities in the SEC's eyes?
  - 52-6F-62 9y ago
    Replying here because we reached max comment count. I can see how our wires got crossed. I interpreted your original comment as questioning whether or not this was a threat to the specific tech or foundation at large, and not just isolated to the US region. So, I guess the argument is moot -- seems like my mistake. It's certainly up in the air in the US at this point. I do find the progression of events interesting, regardless. In spite of what I said, the US does have a social impact with decisions like this -- just maybe not so much right now as in recent years[0]. I get argumentative because I see a lot of promise. I like technical discussion about it vs. regular degradation, so I usually have something to say. [0] http://business.financialpost.com/news/economy/imf-predicts-canada-will-pass-the-u-s-to-top-g7-growth-this-year/wcm/82ed88fe-25d6-44a7-8168-a69d2e384858 http://business.financialpost.com/news/economy/imf-predicts-...

by hudon 9y ago

vasilipupkin 9y ago

If you read the sec document carefully enough, they singled out the DAO because it's unambiguously a security. Shares in a thingymajig blockchain blah blah corp are still shares, therefore, securities. Most tokens are not shares and have uses other than profit motive, therefore, they are not securities

hudon 9y ago
More like, if you read the SEC document carefully enough, you'll see that they applied the 4 prongs of the Howey test to theDAO token and defended each prong with arguments and evidence. They'll probably do the same thing for Ethereum (but not necessarily come to the same conclusion on each prong). Saying "it has other uses than profit" is not sufficient since you'd have to back it up with meaningful evidence (what are the actual uses that investors are getting out of it?)
- maehwasu 9y ago
  > Saying "it has other uses than profit" is not sufficient (does not address all 4 criteria) and you do not back it up with evidence (what are the actual uses that investors are getting out of it?) This true, but the 4 criteria are an AND, not an OR.

52-6F-62 9y ago

Again, the Howey test and SEC rulings only apply to American entities/business. So, if it may impact the status of the Ethereum Foundation (barring all other questions) in the United States, but it won't impact it elsewhere at all except maybe in sentiment. Lately the United States' power of influence in economic matters has decreased, so I don't see that being a major deficit in the long run with regard to a technology that's being investigated and accepted internationally otherwise.

hudon 9y ago
> SEC rulings only apply to American entities/business This is wrong. SEC rulings apply as soon as your investors are US residents. [1] I know neither of us are lawyers, but at least back up what you claim if it might put people's money at risk. [1] https://www.sec.gov/divisions/corpfin/internatl/foreign-private-issuers-overview.shtml https://www.sec.gov/divisions/corpfin/internatl/foreign-priv...
- 52-6F-62 9y ago
  I tried to be clear, but I can see where there is possible ambiguity. I said business, not businesses. The impact would be on their existence within the US, but not internationally. Not with regard to the SEC alone. edit: Okay, you started as snark, then tightened it up a bit after an edit, but my point still stands.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - hudon 9y ago
    I see what you're saying: people not in the US should not be concerned. But that's not what the post is about and that's not what my question is about. The question is whether or not what the Ethereum Foundation sold to US residents are securities in the SEC's eyes?
- 52-6F-62 9y ago
  Replying here because we reached max comment count. I can see how our wires got crossed. I interpreted your original comment as questioning whether or not this was a threat to the specific tech or foundation at large, and not just isolated to the US region. So, I guess the argument is moot -- seems like my mistake. It's certainly up in the air in the US at this point. I do find the progression of events interesting, regardless. In spite of what I said, the US does have a social impact with decisions like this -- just maybe not so much right now as in recent years[0]. I get argumentative because I see a lot of promise. I like technical discussion about it vs. regular degradation, so I usually have something to say. [0] http://business.financialpost.com/news/economy/imf-predicts-canada-will-pass-the-u-s-to-top-g7-growth-this-year/wcm/82ed88fe-25d6-44a7-8168-a69d2e384858 http://business.financialpost.com/news/economy/imf-predicts-...