3 ms·

Yes, the Tweet storm I linked to said as much. The point is when tested by a court, one of the SEC's arguments was rejected. Yes the argument wasn't about the t

Yes, the Tweet storm I linked to said as much. The point is when tested by a court, one of the SEC's arguments was rejected. Yes the argument wasn't about the traditional token sale - it was the SEC trying to classify airdrops as a securities issuance - but it does show that the SEC's arguments are not law. Only courts decide what is law. The big ICO case [2] involved blatant fraud, and looked nothing like the tokens being issued in most token sales, so doesn't set a precedent that affects most of the token sales. Everything else has been settled out of court, with none of the SEC's claims accepted by a court. So your claim that "That settled the issue of whether an ICO is a security" is wrong. An out of court settlement does not settle the law.

CryptoPunk 8y ago
With respect to [2], this is what the tokens represented: >>The ruling came in a criminal case against a man charged with promoting digital currencies backed by investments in real estate and diamonds that prosecutors said didn’t exist. That's a traditional security, with the tokens representing physical assets. It is not like most token sales, which are pre-functional utility tokens, which do not purport to confer a legal claim to any asset. Moreover, the individual selling these tokens was blatantly lying about the existence of the real estate and diamonds. So your initial comment is wildly off the mark with respect to what has been "settled" with respect to token sales.