3 ms·
>In Morgan’s view, the key part of the Howey Test in terms of ICOs is whether the expectation of profit relied on the effort of others This makes sense and is
by jjn2009 9y ago
>In Morgan’s view, the key part of the Howey Test in terms of ICOs is whether the expectation of profit relied on the effort of others
This makes sense and is precisely how its been done, nothing new here but..
>What [the SEC are] trying to do is decide whether the investors are really passive investors or whether they’re actively involved in creating value
Is this to say that the decision to take action is based on perceived investment opportunity rather than something that is explicitly sold as an investment opportunity? This would be a quite dramatic change in the ICO world.
- CryptoPunk 9y ago>Is this to say that the decision to take action is based on perceived investment opportunity rather than something that is explicitly sold as an investment opportunity? I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice, but that is not my reading of it. I believe he means that tokens for applications that gain value from the activity of users, like Bitcoin or Ethereum, would fall outside the definition of a security, while tokens of applications dependent mostly on the activity of a management team to earn revenue, like the DAO vis-à-vis Slock.it - which the SEC concluded was expected to manage the projects the DAO voted on - would fall within the definition of a security.
- jjn2009 9y agoI see, that makes much more sense. I wasn't entirely sure what was meant by that statement.