3 ms·
But this is where judges come in, who can analyze things like real world intent. And stuff like "At launch, LBRY retained 400 million LBC for its own use" doesn
by joshuamorton 3y ago
But this is where judges come in, who can analyze things like real world intent. And stuff like "At launch, LBRY retained 400 million LBC for its own use" doesn't to me imply that these things are the same. TCGs do not function like securities. If I am a securities issuer, I make money primarily when the security goes up in value. If I am a TCG producer, I make money when people buy more of the product, irrespective of the value of it. The goal of a securities issuer is to, over time, inflate the value of the security. The goal of the TCG issuer is to reduce the value of the cards (on the secondary market) by producing more of them.
Konami stock goes the more blue-eyes white dragons are printed. That isn't true for LBRY, and that's what the "common enterprise" bit is about. Hasbro and Konami and the Pokemon company aren't keeping a stockpile of additional secret super valuable cards to go up in value over time, because they aren't securities and they don't act like securities, and the companies will just print more of them if they want to. But that isn't true for LBRY when they keep a hold of the asset they create and bet on its value increasing over time!
And of course this is why we have judges. They can look at the evidence and see that The vast majority of LBRY investors were investing with a profit expectation, LBRY was treating the token as an investment that people could use to profit from the platform's success, etc. The difference is that with LBRY, people treating it as a security was the norm, but with TCGs, treating it as a security is done only by exceptional investors, and the companies don't condone it, even tacitly[0]. And the actual filings in the case make that abundantly clear. You don't have the CEO of Hasbro or Konami or The Pokemon Company releasing press releases about the market value of cards.
Like in the past I'd seen some of these arguments and been somewhat convinced (especially around the whole secondary-market and tax issues), but this feels really cut and dry.
[0]: (except perhaps with MTG's reserved list, but that still fails due to condition 2 above, Hasbro/Wizards and the "investors" in the Reserved list cards have different interests. They aren't invested in a common enterprise. Wizards would love, I mean absolutely adore reprinting reserved list cards, and they try all the time in sneaky ways (silver or gold border, near-functional reprints, digital versions, etc.) because reprinting those is good for the company. What it is bad for is investors in the cards. Those are distinct incentives, not a common enterprise, not a security.
- EGreg 3y agoCan you provide any link at all which defines “common enterprise” in some authoritative way? Otherwise it is just a bunch of words. https://blj.ucdavis.edu/archives/vol-5-no-2/why-the-common-enterprise-test.html https://blj.ucdavis.edu/archives/vol-5-no-2/why-the-common-e... Gensler said Bitcoin is not a security because there is no common enterprise. But no one ever explains what it means. Vertical? Horizontal?
- joshuamorton 3y agoThat article seems fairly authoritative, and lbry would fail the horizonal and narrow vertical tests at least, and tcgs would pass them.