4 ms·

I'm really interested in how this plays out. It seems to me like the SEC's argument is that Grams aren't a currency because you cannot currently buy or sell goo

by Shank 7y ago

I'm really interested in how this plays out. It seems to me like the SEC's argument is that Grams aren't a currency because you cannot currently buy or sell goods with Grams. But the currency hasn't launched yet, and that's the whole point of the injunction I suppose: to stop the currency from launching before it becomes a currency. It also seems to me like this is an effort that's easily circumvented. Wouldn't it be trivial to offer something (such as some fancy badge on a Telegram account) in exchange for Grams, thus giving the currency value? Are there any mechanics at play that could legitimately stop Telegram from launching the blockchain and distributing the tokens to users who aren't from the US?

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
shkkmo 7y ago
It doesn't matter whether it is a "currency" or not. > The test is whether the scheme involves an investment of money in a common enterprise with profits to come solely from the efforts of others. If that test be satisfied, it is immaterial whether the enterprise is speculative or non-speculative or whether there is a sale of property with or without intrinsic value. [0] Thus if the ICO's are sold with the expectation that profiting from the purchase of those token depends entirely on Telegram completing work on their network and integrating that network with their app, then the Howey test seems to apply. Telegram currently restricts the sale of the coin (via contracts) and heavily marketed the value coming from "200 millions of Telegram users will get a TON wallet making it the world’s most adopted cryptocurrency". I don't really see how you could see this a not being a security under the Howey test. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SEC_v._W._J._Howey_Co https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SEC_v._W._J._Howey_Co.
lacker 7y ago
The question isn’t whether it is a currency or a security, it’s whether it is a commodity or a security. Under US law no cryptocurrencies are currencies. Some like Bitcoin and Ethereum are commodities, some like TON are securities, and most of them are unclear.

by Shank 7y ago

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

shkkmo 7y ago

It doesn't matter whether it is a "currency" or not. > The test is whether the scheme involves an investment of money in a common enterprise with profits to come solely from the efforts of others. If that test be satisfied, it is immaterial whether the enterprise is speculative or non-speculative or whether there is a sale of property with or without intrinsic value. [0] Thus if the ICO's are sold with the expectation that profiting from the purchase of those token depends entirely on Telegram completing work on their network and integrating that network with their app, then the Howey test seems to apply. Telegram currently restricts the sale of the coin (via contracts) and heavily marketed the value coming from "200 millions of Telegram users will get a TON wallet making it the world’s most adopted cryptocurrency". I don't really see how you could see this a not being a security under the Howey test. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SEC_v._W._J._Howey_Co https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SEC_v._W._J._Howey_Co.

lacker 7y ago

The question isn’t whether it is a currency or a security, it’s whether it is a commodity or a security. Under US law no cryptocurrencies are currencies. Some like Bitcoin and Ethereum are commodities, some like TON are securities, and most of them are unclear.