3 ms·
It seems to me that by this description, whether or not it's a security is basically how it's marketed? You could also explain such a product as simply a custo
by beaned 4y ago
It seems to me that by this description, whether or not it's a security is basically how it's marketed?
You could also explain such a product as simply a custodianship that is able to hold your eth in a staked state for you, with no promise of return at all, only a claim to whatever the staked eth amounts to in its own domination at the time you'd like to withdraw.
Also these returns are denominated in the staked currency, there is no - and had never been - a promise of returns in USD. I don't actually know: does that make a difference, technically speaking? It would seem that it should.
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago> whether or not it's a security of basically marketing? Not basically, but substantially. > could also explain such a product as simply a custodianship that is able to hold your eth in a staked state for you, with no promise of return at all, only a claim to whatever the staked eth amounts to in its own domination at the time you'd like to withdraw Custodianship is a big word in finance [1]. There are crypto custodians, and I'm guessing they let coins be staked. But that isn't something you can easily scale to retail. > there is no - and had never been - a promise of returns in USD Not relevant. You can issue stock that pays dividends in piñatas. If it's sold to Americans, the SEC has jurisdiction. [1] https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/custodian.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/custodian.asp
- beaned 4y agoAll good to know. > Not relevant. You can issue stock that pays dividends in piñatas. If it's sold to Americans, the SEC has jurisdiction. Isn't this because the stock itself is already a security, not because of whether or how it pays dividends?
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago> Isn't this because the stock itself is already a security, not because of whether or how it pays dividends? Whether it pays dividends, at all or in what form, is irrelevant to whether it's a security. That Kraken didn't pay out U.S. dollars isn't relevant to the question of whether they were offering securities.
- beaned 4y agoYeah that makes sense but that's not what I was meaning to point out. You said this: > You can issue stock that pays dividends in piñatas. If it's sold to Americans, the SEC has jurisdiction. So whether or not the stock issues dividends in eth, USD, pinatas, or not at all, doesn't matter. The SEC "has jurisdiction" simply because a stock is already a security to begin with, right? What I'm asking is, if dividends are not relevant, how is the SEC able to step in specifically in regards to dividends in this case? The way you phrased it, I would understand it to mean that if you can hold the token (or stock, equity, security, etc) on behalf of a user to begin with, then you'd be able to issue the dividends without further approval. Is that understanding incorrect?
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago> if you can hold the token (or stock, equity, security, etc) on behalf of a user to begin with, then you'd be able to issue the dividends without further approval Staking returns are more similar to stock lending than dividends. They don’t automatically arise from owning a token.
- beaned 4y agoActually it does just arise from owning the token, if you stake the token.
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago> it does just arise from owning the token, if you stake the token If. (And you aren’t. You’re asking someone to.)