4 ms·
From the SEC's filing: > Grams are securities because the Initial Purchasers and subsequent investors expect to profit from Telegram’s work: the development of
by DiogenesKynikos 7y ago
From the SEC's filing:
> Grams are securities because the Initial Purchasers and subsequent investors expect to profit from Telegram’s work: the development of a TON “ecosystem,” integration with Messenger, and implementation of the new TON Blockchain. Grams are not a currency because, among other things, there are not any products or services that can be purchased with Grams. Rather, there is an expectation on the part of investors that they will profit if Telegram builds out the functionalities it has promised.
It continues:
> The definition of a “security” includes a wide range of investment vehicles, including “investment contracts.” Investment contracts are instruments through which an individual invests money in a common enterprise and reasonably expects profits or returns derived from the entrepreneurial or managerial efforts of others. In a variety of circumstances, courts have found that novel or unique investment vehicles constitute investment contracts, including interests in orange groves, animal breeding programs, railroads, airplanes, mobile phones, and enterprises existing only on the Internet. As the U.S. Supreme Court has noted, Congress defined “security” broadly to embody a “flexible rather than a static principle, one that is capable of adaptation to meet the countless and variable schemes devised by those who seek the use of the money of others on the promise of profits.”
- snagglegaggle 7y agoYour first quote is interesting, as that definition fits quite well collectible items. As the brand grows the value of the collectible also grows, and the collectible is purchased to make profit (or can be purchased to make profit; maybe I do the reverse and by GRAM just for the fuzzy feeling it gives me). Yet we do not see such actions taken against companies that produce collectibles. This is probably because when adding the second, you see there is a major theme of profit redistribution. In all of those cases profit is collected centrally and then redistributed. With a collectible or a token such as gram it is not -- the item may become more valuable, partially due to activities of the creator, but it is not a profit sharing scheme. So... do Telegram's tokens grant you some definite share of their future profits? You're giving them money, but there is no legal recourse to claim a return from what I can see.
- milankragujevic 7y agoCollectibles are not exclusively purchased to be resold at a higher price ad infinitum. They are at least physical items.
- snagglegaggle 7y agoA large number of people "invest" in collectibles only to resell them for a higher price. See: beany babies, trading card games, figurines, dolls. Just like those items tokens can be owned though their representation isn't much to look at. I'm not sure that is a useful distinction, unless you can explain further? E.g. why doesn't it apply to intellectual property? I keep getting downvoted -- I'm not arguing that Telegram has a workable business plan, just that this isn't really something the SEC can regulate.
- milankragujevic 7y agoYou can put collectibles on a shelf to impress likeminded friends. Or to feel happy. You can only trade securities and other similar assets. Also, generally if everyone bought figures to resell... I dont know how that can work... There is always an "unlucky fool" who buys from "scalpers" and keeps the item.
- derefr 7y agoHow about virtual collectibles in MMOs?
- milankragujevic 7y agoIf purchased to resell, then yes it should be and already is mostly made illegal/breach of TOS. People can buy things to enjoy, not just to resell.
- flyGuyOnTheSly 7y ago>Collectibles are not exclusively purchased to be resold at a higher price ad infinitum. Neither is crypto. I use it to buy real things all the time. Usually at a significant price discount, to boot!