3 ms·
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 e
by 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 agothat’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?