3 ms·
> The good news is that judges can read the law and interpret it without having a myopic focus on specific wordings Hmm, sort of but the specific set of requir
by IanCal 3y ago
> The good news is that judges can read the law and interpret it without having a myopic focus on specific wordings
Hmm, sort of but the specific set of requirements here are important. That's the point of a test like this.
> They also don't use investopedia as a legally-binding source.
Sure, but it's literally a quote from the supreme court case, I was pointing out that I got that from investopedia. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/328/293/ https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/328/293/
> Whether an NFT (or any other crypto token) is a security is still very much up in the air, and I am assuming is not able to be uniformly defined.
Correct. NTFs are very simple data structures, it depends on the token and how it's sold as to whether it counts as a security or not.
- pclmulqdq 3y agoThe test does not include any specification of what must be an investment contract, though. Things like fields of orange trees have failed to pass the Howey test.
- Dylan16807 3y agoThe orange trees are there for the purpose of producing and selling oranges. In the case of a plain NFT, all labor associated with a piece of art is done before the NFT is sold. There is no enterprise generating profit for the owner. It's just an asset where they hope the value will increase.
- echelon 3y ago> It's just an asset where they hope the value will increase. If a16z invested in crypto / NFT companies that fail the Howey test, are they by extension culpable too?
- pclmulqdq 3y agoSure it is. And all that language about how you are buying into a project or this will be part of a future game with an economy is all part of that art too, right? And all the promises of airdrops are part of the art done beforehand, as are all of the promises that early buyers will be the "1%" of the new ecosystem?
- Dylan16807 3y agoI would say that a plain NFT doesn't have a game or airdrops. Impact Theory is not a plain NFT.
- pclmulqdq 3y agoI would agree with you that an NFT in itself does not constitute a security. An NFT as it was actually used by crypto people is a different story, though. And I would say that the "NFT as a pre-investment in a project" is the norm, not the exception in that regard.
- pama 3y agoFootnote in the Supreme Court opinion: “The term 'security' means any note, stock, treasury stock, bond, debenture, evidence of indebtedness, certificate of interest or participation in any profit-sharing agreement, collateral trust certificate, pre-organization certificate or subscription, transferable share, investment contract, voting trust certificate, certificate of deposit for a security, fractional undivided interest in oil, gas, or other mineral rights, or, in general, any interest or instrument commonly known as a 'security,' or any certificate of interest or participation in, temporary or interim certificate for, receipt for, guarantee of, or warrant or right to subscribe to or purchase, any of the foregoing."