3 ms·

Why would a sneaker fall under the terms they're using to define a security if not every digital token does?

yieldcrv 3y ago
> Why would a sneaker fall under the terms they're using to define a security because the sneaker trade market focuses on sneakers that are released with artificial scarcity, where many participants in that market buy with an investment of money, with a reliance on the issuer and others to keep them scarce and valuable and promote them, with an expectation of profit. the SEC is basically saying if any random person has an expectation of profit guiding their purchase at any time, the entire asset and all transactions is a security and everyone that is trading it needs to be a registered broker dealer or registered promoter, and then even if they could be registered they would not be allowed to trade unregistered securities, or even registered esoteric securities like shoes and digital commodity units because the Self Regulatory Organizations are too permissioned for shares and bonds exclusively. > if not every digital token does? that's the point. there is either a way where a digital asset is exclusively a commodity, or there isn't at all and every corporate controlled unnatural commodity inherits the same regulatory framework that the SEC is trying to impose on digital assets and the entire trading ecosystem.
reaperman 3y ago
They wouldn't. 'yieldcrv is not demonstrating knowledge of the Howey test, and appears to be heavily focused on a narrower reading, "buying something with the expectation of increased future value" -- which they're setting up as a strawman's Howey's test. Sneakers would not meet the Howey Test: An investment contract exists if there is an "investment of money in a common enterprise with a reasonable expectation of profits to be derived from the efforts of others." The four parts of the Howey test, distilled down to plain English (and therefore losing a great deal of nuance in the process): - It is an investment of money. - The investment is in a common enterprise. - There is an expectation of profits. - The expectation of profits is solely from the efforts of the promoter or a third party. Buying the latest Yeezy's is not a common enterprise. The fourth point is debatable.
- yieldcrv 3y ago
  that’s an interesting use of strawman to invalidate the observation The howey test doesn’t need all prongs satisfied and avoidance is based on probability only The SEC and securities industry has enjoyed a symbiosis for 70 years, where things that blurred the lines didnt exist, were never imagined, or were never challenged. Challenging one challenges them all.
- lmm 3y ago
  > Buying the latest Yeezy's is not a common enterprise. And yet buying a token is? What's the distinction here?

> Why would a sneaker fall under the terms they're using to define a security because the sneaker trade market focuses on sneakers that are released with artificial scarcity, where many participants in that market buy with an investment of money, with a reliance on the issuer and others to keep them scarce and valuable and promote them, with an expectation of profit. the SEC is basically saying if any random person has an expectation of profit guiding their purchase at any time, the entire asset and all transactions is a security and everyone that is trading it needs to be a registered broker dealer or registered promoter, and then even if they could be registered they would not be allowed to trade unregistered securities, or even registered esoteric securities like shoes and digital commodity units because the Self Regulatory Organizations are too permissioned for shares and bonds exclusively. > if not every digital token does? that's the point. there is either a way where a digital asset is exclusively a commodity, or there isn't at all and every corporate controlled unnatural commodity inherits the same regulatory framework that the SEC is trying to impose on digital assets and the entire trading ecosystem.

reaperman 3y ago

They wouldn't. 'yieldcrv is not demonstrating knowledge of the Howey test, and appears to be heavily focused on a narrower reading, "buying something with the expectation of increased future value" -- which they're setting up as a strawman's Howey's test. Sneakers would not meet the Howey Test: An investment contract exists if there is an "investment of money in a common enterprise with a reasonable expectation of profits to be derived from the efforts of others." The four parts of the Howey test, distilled down to plain English (and therefore losing a great deal of nuance in the process): - It is an investment of money. - The investment is in a common enterprise. - There is an expectation of profits. - The expectation of profits is solely from the efforts of the promoter or a third party. Buying the latest Yeezy's is not a common enterprise. The fourth point is debatable.

yieldcrv 3y ago
that’s an interesting use of strawman to invalidate the observation The howey test doesn’t need all prongs satisfied and avoidance is based on probability only The SEC and securities industry has enjoyed a symbiosis for 70 years, where things that blurred the lines didnt exist, were never imagined, or were never challenged. Challenging one challenges them all.
lmm 3y ago
> Buying the latest Yeezy's is not a common enterprise. And yet buying a token is? What's the distinction here?