Blockchain Consultants

Blockchain Transformations Done Here

Securities and Exchange Commission

Growing Demand for Cryptocurrencies Creates New Career Options for Crypto Enthusiasts

by

Want to know what are the career options in the Crypto space? Is it worth becoming a Cryptocurrency Expert? This article will answer all your questions.

Table of Contents 

  • Why the Demand for Cryptocurrencies is Soaring 
  • Cryptocurrencies that are Gaining Public Attention
  • Crypto Space Indicates No Sign of Slowing Down  
  • Career Opportunities in Crypto Space
  • Conclusion

Why the Demand for Cryptocurrencies is Soaring 

The advent of Cryptocurrencies took the globe by storm. The generation of Cryptocurrencies started in the year 2009 with the launch of bitcoin, whose exact roots are unknown; however, the idea of bitcoin was first published in a research paper by an anonymous person called Satoshi Nakamoto in 2008. As people in every sector now work more easily in a virtual environment, people are more drawn to the Crypto-space. One would assume, the greater the degree of compatibility between Cryptocurrency and everyday technology, the higher the rate of adoption.

Crypto-based ATMs allow for quick and hassle-free purchases of digital assets, but their mainstream appeal is still minimal. Cryptocurrency is seen by people as a potentially great digital asset to invest. The lockdown had given Cryptocurrencies a fresh lease of life, as even conventional investors were pushed into alternative approaches such as Cryptocurrencies during these tough times.

Cryptocurrencies that are Gaining Public Attention

Bitcoin(BTC)

2020 and the coming years, according to Crypto-specialists and Cryptocurrency experts will flourish, especially for Bitcoin(BTC) users. BTC still has the highest market capitalization, despite being the oldest Cryptocurrency. A recent, comprehensive study has predicted that this year’s price of bitcoin will reach nearly $20 K and continue to rise to almost $400 K by 2030. BTC reached a peak on September 1, as prices crossed $12,044 per coin, according to Bitcoin.com.

Ethereum(ETH)

At present, ETH is the second most common Cryptocurrency. June edition of the Crypto Research Report (CRR) predicted the price of different Cryptocurrencies like Ethereum and others and estimated that the price of Ethereum is projected to hit $331 in 2020, $3,549 in 2025, and $3,644 in 2030.

Ripple(XRP)

Ripple is possibly the most commonly used coin for cross-border payments by many leading financial institutions worldwide and currently has a market cap of $10.94 B. The National Bank of Egypt has recently partnered with Ripple. As many banks are working with Ripple, the recognition and demand for Cryptocurrency is growing, which means that XRP’s price will continue to grow. 

Crypto Space Indicates No Sign of Slowing Down 

Crypto-friendly commissioner with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), Hester Peirce, stated that demand for Cryptocurrency is rising as investors aim to expand their portfolios. Moreover, after the Supreme Court lifted the Reserve Bank of India’s controversial ban on Cryptocurrency trade in March, many startups and new players have joined the Crypto ecosystem amid the COVID-19 pandemic. 

LinkedIn, a social network that focuses on professional networking and career growth, reported that Blockchain tops the list of most in-demand “hard skills” for 2020. Glassdoor, indeed.com, naukri.com, some of the world’s largest job and recruiting sites, indicates that there are millions of Blockchain-related jobs in the Blockchain and Crypto space.

Career Opportunities in Crypto Space

As the Crypto industry continues to edge towards maturity, there will be several new job profiles in this domain. Presently, Certified Cryptocurrency Trader(CCT) and Certified Cryptocurrency Expert(CCE) are gaining a lot of attention. Let’s explore both of them in detail. 

Certified Cryptocurrency Trader(CCT)

A Cryptocurrency Trader is a skilled professional who knows in-depth what a Cryptocurrency is, how it works, and uses the acquired knowledge to make new utility tokens and Cryptocurrencies. Online certification offered by Blockchain Council helps individuals to understand trading in-depth, learn risk management, and trading psychology. Additionally, the organization focuses on teaching candlestick charts and trading strategies. This certification course is for all those who want to gain in-depth knowledge of trading rules and predicting markets.  

Certified Cryptocurrency Expert(CCE) 

A Cryptocurrency Expert is one who has a comprehensive awareness of various Cryptocurrencies and the working of distributed ledger technologies(DLTs). He possesses knowledge of bitcoin protocols at the professional level and can create and integrate applications with the bitcoin network. The online training and certification provided by the esteemed organization, Blockchain Council, covers many of Cryptocurrency’s basics, such as the Blockchain concept, Initial Coin Offering (ICO), how to exchange, what to purchase, wallets, etc. 

This certification course provides an advanced training level, which gives you profuse expertise on Cryptocurrencies and digital assets.

Conclusion 

Undoubtedly, Cryptocurrencies are gaining momentum, but Crypto trading can be daunting and complex for beginners. Therefore, it is advisable to invest in Cryptocurrencies strategically and focus on return before making an investment. If you want to become a Crypto professional, there are ample career opportunities in the market. 

Getting enrolled in Blockchain Council can help you become a Certified Cryptocurrency Trader/ Expert.

 To get instant updates about Blockchain Technology and to learn more about online Blockchain Certifications, check out Blockchain Council.  

Growing Demand for Cryptocurrencies Creates New Career Options for Crypto Enthusiasts

Source

SEC v. Telegram: Part 3 — The extraterritorial reach of US securities laws

by

As mentioned in the first and second parts of this story, on March 24, 2020, in a widely reported and closely followed decision, Judge Peter Castel imposed a sweeping preliminary injunction preventing Telegram from issuing its planned crypto asset, Grams. Shortly thereafter, the judge clarified his initial ruling by explicitly holding that the injunction applied to all sales worldwide regardless of where the original purchasers might be located. Efforts by Telegram to see that the Grams would not easily be resold into the United States were unavailing. This part of the story looks at the decision to apply U.S. requirements extraterritorially (outside our geographic borders, to a company headquartered elsewhere, selling to persons located elsewhere).

There is a clear presumption against applying U.S. law to foreign transactions. On the other hand, if the transaction has a sufficient connection to U.S. citizens or markets, U.S. law may be applied. The difficulty is in knowing how much of a connection is required.

In 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Morrison v. National Australia Bank Ltd. that in order to apply the anti-fraud provisions of the U.S. securities laws, the securities in question either had to be listed on a domestic exchange or the transaction had to be domestic in character. Shortly after that decision was released, U.S. Congress enacted Dodd–Frank, which gave federal district courts jurisdiction over fraud claims involving significant steps in furtherance of a violation or having a foreseeable substantial effect in the United States.

The meaning of Dodd–Frank is subject to debate, with some commentators saying the language does not change the law and merely grants jurisdiction over claims. Others say the decision was designed to expand the reach of U.S. law. Given this uncertainty, in particular, it is not unreasonable for Judge Castel to have decided that if Telegram had issued the Grams, they would eventually have found their way into the hands of at least some U.S. purchasers. This could be seen as a substantial effect here. However, the fact that the judge’s ruling is defensible under U.S. law does not mean that the decision is supportable from a policy perspective.

By their very nature, crypto assets are inherently transnational. They cannot be confined to a single nation, and it is impossible to ascertain where they are definitively “located,” since in reality, a crypto asset is nothing more than computer-generated alpha-numeric sequences stored electronically on the World Wide Web. This means that when the U.S. insists on applying its law to crypto assets because they might be resold into the U.S., there is almost inevitably the risk of over-regulation.

In most cases, the issuer is likely to be complying with the law of the nation(s) where the primary effects are felt. Adding U.S. law on top of those is likely to create overlapping, redundant and potentially inconsistent requirements.

In addition, the possibility that U.S. law will be applied to transactions that are essentially occurring elsewhere creates uncertainty, making it more likely that entrepreneurs will work very hard to stay out of U.S. markets. Not only does this diminish the availability of capital for legitimate businesses but it also prevents U.S. investors from having the option of participating in those endeavors.

Not surprisingly, this reality is likely to increase international resentment. Just as the U.S. has its own objectives and interests to protect, so too do other nations. Their approach to regulation of securities transactions and markets reflects their own unique priorities and needs, while blanket application of U.S. law ignores their legitimate policy considerations. Foreign governments have repeatedly disapproved of U.S. efforts to enforce anti-fraud mandates in their markets; they are no more likely to welcome our regulations in their crypto markets.

In the past, international reaction has suggested that the extraterritorial application of U.S. law is intrusive and arrogant. This, in turn, increases the impetus for pushback where other nations seek to impose their laws and vision on U.S. businesses.

The reality is that a system of international regulation where individual nations vie to have their particular viewpoint applied globally is antithetical to the goal of harmonization. Extraterritorial application of U.S. domestic law diminishes the role of traditional international law, resulting not only in confusion, over-regulation and legal uncertainty but also reducing the possibility of developing an international consensus where a harmonized, cooperative approach to regulation of crypto is created.

SEC v. Telegram is a single decision, from a single judge, in a single court, on a motion for a preliminary injunction. There are many opportunities for the decision’s impact to be limited. It can be factually distinguished because Telegram did not raise many of its arguments until after the preliminary injunction issued. Other courts can disagree with the rationale or result. The SEC could change its approach in future enforcement proceedings. Congress could step in to mandate a different approach.

This comment suggests that any of those alternatives are likely to be preferable to insisting U.S. law must apply to all crypto transactions no matter where they are based on the grounds that the crypto assets are likely to land in the hands of U.S. purchasers eventually.

This is Part 3 of a three-part series on the legal case between the U.S. SEC and Telegram’s claims to be securities. Read Part 1 on introduction to the context here, and Part 2 on why this decision should not be followed in other cases here.

The views, thoughts and opinions expressed here are the author’s alone and do not necessarily reflect or represent the views and opinions of Cointelegraph.

Carol Goforth is a university professor and the Clayton N. Little Professor of Law at the University of Arkansas (Fayetteville) School of Law.

The opinions expressed are the author’s alone and do not necessarily reflect the views of the University or its affiliates. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.

SEC v. Telegram: Part 3 — The extraterritorial reach of US securities laws

Source

SEC v. Telegram: Part 2 — The case against integrating the two prongs of a SAFT

by

As discussed in the previous article, Telegram is a popular global instant messaging company. In 2018, it sold contractual rights to acquire a new crypto asset that it was developing (to be called Grams) to a group of accredited (and wealthy) investors around the world. Telegram raised about $1.7 billion from 171 investors, including 39 U.S. purchasers. This was a prelude to the planned launch of Grams, which was to occur about a year and a half later in October 2019.

This two-step process — where a crypto entrepreneur sells contractual rights to acquire a crypto asset upon launch in order to fund the development of the asset and its network — has come to be known as the Simple Agreement for Future Tokens, or SAFT, process.

SAFT uses a two-stage offering process similar to that employed by conventional businesses that sell Simple Agreements for Future Equities, or SAFEs. The sale of the contractual rights is acknowledged to involve a security and is, therefore, structured to comply with one of the available exemptions from registration contained in U.S. law. In Telegram’s case, as is typical, the claimed exemption was Regulation D, Rule 506(c). For this exemption, all purchasers are required to be accredited investors, verified by or on behalf of the issuer.

Although the SAFE process is widely accepted, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission objected to Telegram’s sale of contractual rights, filing to enjoin the issuance of Grams in October of 2019. On March 24, 2020, in a widely reported and closely followed decision, Judge Peter Castel imposed a sweeping preliminary injunction preventing Telegram from issuing its planned crypto asset, Grams.

The rationale of the court was that the entire process, from start to finish, was part of a single scheme, and the original purchasers of the SAFT were not buying for their own personal use but in order to facilitate the wider distribution of the asset. This, in the opinion of both the SEC and the court, meant that the SAFT purchasers were underwriters. Because they would resell most of the Grams as soon as they could to purchasers who were not all accredited, the entire offering violated U.S. securities laws.

This is a complicated and confusing legal argument, turning on some of the most intricate definitions in the securities law. In a serious oversimplification that will probably have securities lawyers cringing, all sales that are part of a single offering have to comply with the requirements of that offering.

In other words, if the exemption that the offering is relying upon requires all purchasers to be verified accredited investors, no sales that are part of that offering can be made to anyone who does not qualify. And, in order to make sure that the issuer of the securities is not sneakily evading the exemption’s requirements, the issuer cannot sell to an accredited investor only to have that person turn around and resell to someone else who does not qualify. A purchaser who does that is acting as an underwriter.

The hardest part is how to tell if a resale is really part of the original offering. That is where yet another confusing legal concept comes into play. If there are enough differences between the two sales, they are not supposed to be integrated or treated as part of the same offering. Instead, the securities will be deemed to have come to rest in the hands of the initial purchasers, and subsequent resales will not destroy the original exemption.

The so-called integration doctrine is supposed to turn on five factors:

  1. Are the sales part of the same plan of financing?
  2. Do they involve issuance of the same class of securities?
  3. Are they made at or about the same time?
  4. Do they involve the same kind of consideration?
  5. Are they made for the same general purpose?

You can go back through the Telegram opinion and not find any discussion of these factors, which the court evades by talking about the entire plan as a single scheme to sell not the contractual rights but the Grams.

In fact, if those factors were considered, it does not appear that Telegram’s sale of contractual rights should have been integrated with the sale of the Grams. Telegram raised the funds it needed to develop the Grams and work on the Telegram Open Network with the original sale of contractual rights.

Any future plans to issue or sell Grams were not finalized and would not fund the same activities. Contractual rights are clearly distinguishable from crypto assets. The sale of contractual rights took place more than a year before the crypto assets were to be available, and more than two years before the court issued its preliminary injunction.

This is critical because Rule 502 of Regulation D says that sales made more than six months before or more than six months after completion of a Regulation D offering are not to be integrated if there are no intervening sales.

While all sales are likely to involve payment of assets convertible into fiat currency, any earnings from the resale of Grams would benefit the original purchasers, not Telegram, and thus would not be for the same general purpose.

Many commentators over the years have objected to the integration doctrine as being unduly burdensome on fledgling businesses, as well as being cumbersome and difficult to apply consistently. In fact, in March 2020, the SEC proposed rules that would make it substantially less likely for integration to occur, including a safe harbor if sales occur more than 30 days before or 30 days after an offering.

Judge Castel’s approach in SEC v. Telegram appears to ignore all of this and, instead, treats sales of a different kind of interest occurring more than a year apart, for different purposes, as part of a single scheme because the resales are “foreseeable.” That is a ruling that, if followed and applied elsewhere, will only increase the burdens on innovative, startup businesses; push more companies overseas to avoid our overly restrictive and unpredictable requirements; limit U.S.’ investors’ ability to participate in new business; and further muddle an already confusing area of the law.

This is part two of a three-part series on the legal case between the U.S. SEC and Telegram’s claims to be securities — read part one on introduction to the context here, and part three on the decision to apply U.S. requirements extraterritorially here.

The views, thoughts and opinions expressed here are the author’s alone and do not necessarily reflect or represent the views and opinions of Cointelegraph.

Carol Goforth is a university professor and the Clayton N. Little Professor of Law at the University of Arkansas (Fayetteville) School of Law.  

The opinions expressed are the author’s alone and do not necessarily reflect the views of the University or its affiliates. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.

SEC v. Telegram: Part 2 — The case against integrating the two prongs of a SAFT

Source

In a 130-page court filing, Kik claims the SECs lawsuit twists the facts about its online token

by

CEO Ted Livingston of Kik

Kik Interactive has hit back at the Securities and Exchange Commission lawsuit that claims a $100 million token sale was illegal. The company, which owns Kik Messenger, filed a 130-page response today in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging that the SEC is “twisting” the facts about its token, called Kin, and asking for an early trial date and dismissal of the complaint.

One of the key issues in the case is if Kin was just an in-app token used to buy games, digital products and other services in Kik Messenger, or if it was meant to be an investment opportunity, as the SEC alleges.

Kik’s general counsel Eileen Lyon said in a press statement that “since Kin is not itself a security, the SEC must show that it was sold in a way that violates the securities laws. The SEC had access to over 50,000 documents and took testimony from nearly 20 witnesses prior to filing its Complaint, yet it is unable to make the case that Kik’s token sale violated the securities laws without bending the facts to distort the record.”

The SEC alleges that the token sale, announced in 2017, came at a time when the company had predicted that it would run out of money after Kik Messenger had been losing money for years, and that it then used proceeds from that sale to build an online marketplace for the app.

In the filing, Kik’s legal team denied that charge, claiming that the SEC’s allegations about its financial condition “is solely designed for misdirection, thereby prejudicing Kik and portraying it in a negative light” and that Kik began working on a cryptocurrency-based model after exploring monetization options that would help it compete against larger tech companies.

They added that “Kik’s Board and Executive Team alike believed that Kin was a bold idea that could solve the monetization challenges faced by all developers (not just Kik) in the existing advertising-based economy, by changing the way people buy and sell digital products and services.”

The SEC also alleges that the sale of digital tokens to U.S. investors was illegal because Kik did not register their offer as required by United States law, even though it claims that Kik marketed Kin as an investment opportunity whose value would increase. In its response, Kik denied that it offered or sold securities, or violated federal securities laws.

In the company’s press statement, Kik CEO Ted Livingston said, “The SEC tries to paint a picture that the Kin project was an act of desperation rather than the bold move that it was to win the game, and one that Kakao, Line, Telegram and Facebook have all now followed.”

Read more: https://techcrunch.com/2019/08/06/in-a-130-page-court-filing-kik-claims-the-secs-lawsuit-twists-the-facts-about-its-online-token/

With markets going crypto-crazy, SEC chairman weighs in

by

Given the crazy run cryptocurrencies like bitcoin, ether and litecoin have been on in the last week, it was only a matter of time before the Securities and Exchange Commission weighed in. Well, now it has in the form of an open letter from SEC Chairman Jay Clayton.

Clayton addresses his comments to both Main Street investors and financial services and market professionals that are selling the new financial products — and he has choice words for both.

A tl;dr of the statement yields three main principles. For investors, it’s buyer beware. For market professionals: coin offerings are securities. And for market makers: you may be in violation of U.S. securities laws if you’re not registered with the SEC and selling some of these securities.

For Main Street investors, Clayton notes that there are “substantially less investor protection” than in traditional securities markets and cautions that this lack of protection creates greater opportunities for fraud and market manipulation (which… yeah, of course… and it also means there’s less recourse for investors if and when things go badly).

The SEC hasn’t registered any coin offerings and it hasn’t approved any public offering for exchange-traded products that hold cryptocurrency, so investors should be careful of anyone who makes claims to the contrary, Clayton warns.

Ultimately, Clayton’s advice to investors can be boiled down to a very simple maxim: IF IT SOUNDS TOO GOOD TO BE TRUE, IT PROBABLY IS. Beyond that, any encouragement to “act now” or that there’s a guaranteed upside to the investment probably means that an investor shouldn’t and that there isn’t (and if you’re interested in seeing a list of questions Clayton proposes an investor ask before investing in a token sale, see the end of this piece).

For market professionals, Clayton underscored the opportunity for entrepreneurs that cryptocurrencies represent, but also emphasized that an offering is an offering is an offering.

Here’s the relevant passage:

… any such activity that involves an offering of securities must be accompanied by the important disclosures, processes and other investor protections that our securities laws require. A change in the structure of a securities offering does not change the fundamental point that when a security is being offered, our securities laws must be followed. Said another way, replacing a traditional corporate interest recorded in a central ledger with an enterprise interest recorded through a blockchain entry on a distributed ledger may change the form of the transaction, but it does not change the substance.

I’m going to reiterate that, because the commissioner does. If a coin offering looks like a security, and floats like a security, then don’t be surprised if the SEC treats it like a security.

“Merely calling a token a ‘utility’ token or structuring it to provide some utility does not prevent the token from being a security,” Clayton writes. “Tokens and offerings that incorporate features and marketing efforts that emphasize the potential for profits based on the entrepreneurial or managerial efforts of others continue to contain the hallmarks of a security under U.S. law.”

The effect of this statement on the market should be profound. While it’s probably true that the crypto community knew this was coming, it’s the most starkly worded language I’ve seen about the way the SEC intends to treat coin offerings or “token” sales. Indeed, Clayton indicates that he doesn’t recognize a difference.

Beyond the market professionals, Clayton puts securities lawyers, accountants and consultants on notice that they need “to be guided by the principal motivation for our registration, offering process and disclosure requirements: investor protection and, in particular, the protection of our Main Street investors.”

Finally, it seems like Clayton and the SEC have found one red line where consumer interests are not to be crossed, and that’s in the crypto space. He ends with a warning to the shills, hucksters, con-men, snake oil salesman and celebrities that have been pitching coin offerings as way to get rich.

“Selling securities generally requires a license, and experience shows that excessive touting in thinly traded and volatile markets can be an indicator of ‘scalping,’ ‘pump and dump’ and other manipulations and frauds,” Clayton writes. “Similarly, I also caution those who operate systems and platforms that effect or facilitate transactions in these products that they may be operating unregistered exchanges or broker-dealers that are in violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.”

The tough talk doesn’t end there. “While there are cryptocurrencies that do not appear to be securities, simply calling something a ‘currency’ or a currency-based product does not mean that it is not a security,” Clayton writes. “Before launching a cryptocurrency or a product with its value tied to one or more cryptocurrencies, its promoters must either (1) be able to demonstrate that the currency or product is not a security or (2) comply with applicable registration and other requirements under our securities laws.”

Sample Questions for Investors Considering a Cryptocurrency or ICO Investment Opportunity

  • Who exactly am I contracting with?
  • Who is issuing and sponsoring the product, what are their backgrounds, and have they provided a full and complete description of the product? Do they have a clear written business plan that I understand?
  • Who is promoting or marketing the product, what are their backgrounds, and are they licensed to sell the product? Have they been paid to promote the product?
  • Where is the enterprise located?
  • Where is my money going and what will be it be used for? Is my money going to be used to “cash out” others?
  • What specific rights come with my investment?
  • Are there financial statements? If so, are they audited, and by whom?
  • Is there trading data? If so, is there some way to verify it?
  • How, when, and at what cost can I sell my investment? For example, do I have a right to give the token or coin back to the company or to receive a refund? Can I resell the coin or token, and if so, are there any limitations on my ability to resell?
  • If a digital wallet is involved, what happens if I lose the key? Will I still have access to my investment?
  • If a blockchain is used, is the blockchain open and public? Has the code been published, and has there been an independent cybersecurity audit?
  • Has the offering been structured to comply with the securities laws and, if not, what implications will that have for the stability of the enterprise and the value of my investment?
  • What legal protections may or may not be available in the event of fraud, a hack, malware, or a downturn in business prospects? Who will be responsible for refunding my investment if something goes wrong?
  • If I do have legal rights, can I effectively enforce them and will there be adequate funds to compensate me if my rights are violated?

Read more: https://techcrunch.com/2017/12/11/with-markets-going-crypto-crazy-sec-chairman-weighs-in/

SEC shows support for ICOs that are not obviously securities

by

Gil PenchinaContributor

Gil Penchina is a partner at IDG Ventures and Flight.vc.

More posts by this contributor:

The SEC appears to have taken very thoughtful action on two crypto projects to date. Nay-sayers are predicting the end, while proponents of crypto dismiss the actions.

Here’s a quick analysis of what is actually happening. The two recent steps by the SEC were:

  1. The SEC actually issued a letter on one project — the ill-fated DAO. This was a project that allowed investors in the token to pool their funds and invest in other crypto companies (including C Corps that were in the crypto space). This was a clear sale of securities under almost anyone’s definition, as the investors were to receive ownership in a variety of crypto startups.
  2. The SEC recently contacted Protostarr and as a result of the verbal inquiry, Protostarr decided to “shut down and return all funds.” What was Protostarr doing? They were securitizing the income stream of YouTubers and Twitch casters, by letting investors get a percentage of the future revenues of those stars.

In both cases, even a non-lawyer can see that both were clearly securitization and under the SEC’s jurisdiction, as there were underlying assets in both cases. The DAO securitized equity, Protostarr securitized a future revenue stream much like a royalty on an artist.

My takeaway is pretty clear:

 
  • Protocol-level tokens (Bitcoin, Ethereum, etc.) do not have any assets of any kind underlying them and remain far from the SEC’s current focus.
  • Apps that give you a credit for future usage (Filecoin, Civic, Gnosis, etc.) are in my opinion still effectively pre-paid gift cards like an Amazon gift card, and are not covered by the SEC. I have no proof of this but the analogy is amazingly sound.
  • Apps that “sell future income streams” now have two examples of SEC scrutiny, and I would expect more.

The takeaway: Securitization of assets like LAToken (assets like art and real estate), Onegram (gold) and others will continue to receive SEC scrutiny and these sorts of innovations will move offshore (LAToken is offshore). This is entirely appropriate, given the SEC’s purview over sale of derivatives.

What happens to the rest of the ICO market? It’s not clear yet, but the SEC is clearly focused on the “low-hanging fruit” by going after examples where they can obviously win and have a great case against a weak opponent.

The DAO, for example, was already closed when the SEC issued their letter. And for Protostarr, both securities lawyers I know (J. Dax Hansen at Perkins Coie and Marco Santori at Cooley) would have told the Protostarr team that their idea was terrible in the first 5 minutes of an introductory call… just like they did when I first talked to them.

Read more: https://techcrunch.com/2017/09/14/sec-shows-support-for-icos-that-are-not-obviously-securities/