In a series of remarks over the past year, SEC Commissioner Hester Peirce laid the groundwork for a potential SEC safe harbor for developmental token offerings, which could provide a registration exemption for three years to give token networks a sufficient incubation period to achieve “maturity.”
The theory behind the proposed safe harbor is that the current regulatory framework functions as a barrier to launching token networks because offerors fear they may be treated as securities before they have time to mature into decentralized networks. The safe harbor would exempt certain tokens, subject to various conditions, with the aim of creating a regulatory environment that promotes fairness and predictability, while encouraging new offerings and the concomitant competition and innovation that could flow therefrom.
Stuck in Port
Commissioner Peirce first raised the prospect of a token safe harbor last July during a speech in Singapore. She compared renegade red pandas and their predilection for life “outside the fence” to the ever-evolving fintech innovation that continues to frustrate the efforts of regulators to keep pace. While expressing a desire “to see more focused momentum at the US SEC toward finalizing our regulatory regime for digital assets,” she also acknowledged that there are two unique aspects of the US system that can make progress more difficult to come by. The first of these is the “sheer number of regulators”:
“Not only do we have the state-federal allocation of responsibility that I just mentioned, but we have multiple federal financial regulators. The SEC regulates only securities; other agencies regulate commodities, currencies, many derivatives, and bank products. Even the federal securities space is shared with a quasi-private regulator, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), which regulates broker-dealers, and with other non-governmental regulators.”
The second, and perhaps most notable, aspect is the reality that “the definition of what constitutes a security is a bit nebulous”:
“Unlike many other countries, we do not have an exclusive list of what counts as a ‘security.’ The term of course includes stock, bonds, debentures, notes, puts, calls, and other classic ‘security’ instruments, but it also includes ‘investment contracts.’ The courts have defined the investment contract category of securities by considering whether it encompasses particular assets presented in litigation. In the grandfather of these cases, SEC v. Howey, our Supreme Court established a test for determining whether something was an investment contract and therefore a security under our laws. Howey involved interests in an orange grove, so it is clear that an instrument need not look, smell, or taste like a traditional security in order to be deemed one by our laws. Under Howey, something—including something that is a digital asset—is a security if it involves an investment in a common enterprise with an expectation of profits derived solely through the efforts of others.”
Within this nebulous framework, Commissioner Peirce pondered how tokens required to be issued as securities might eventually transition to the point of decentralization where they cease to be securities. She subsequently posited certain preliminary pillars of a safe harbor exemption for tokens to help facilitate such a transition:
- “[a] non-exclusive safe harbor for the offer and sale of certain tokens” that would “permit issuers to offer tokens under an alternative regime with robust requirements”;
- a “time-limited” exemption that would “guard against reliance on the safe harbor by projects without a workable plan to build operational networks”;
- permits trading in order to “get tokens in and out of the hands of developers and users”;
- “open digital token offerings to facilitate participation in open-source software development”; and
- disclosure requirements “important to purchasers of tokens intended for use in open-source networks” (for example, “providing clear disclosure of the assets’ functionality, including the mechanisms for changing holders’ rights and explaining how funds are to be used”).
The non-exclusive nature of the safe harbor would ensure that, even where a particular token offering failed to meet the requirements, it “might still comply with other of our rules, such as our private placement exemption.” Commissioner Peirce acknowledged that her concept was “very preliminary,” but that it “might be a way to ensure that the legal regime does not inadvertently choke token networks off before they get off the ground.”
Regulatory Catch 22
After laying the initial groundwork, Commissioner Peirce’s next public foray into the topic of a potential token safe harbor came during a speech at the International Blockchain Congress in Chicago in February 2020, where she unveiled an actual proposal that would temporarily exempt blockchain tokens from federal securities registration requirements if certain criteria are met.
Commissioner Peirce acknowledged again the regulatory “conundrum” that existing securities laws create for developers, and she analogized to a time when she pulled into a gas station in New Jersey in the pouring rain during a college road trip. Despite the clear notice that state law prohibited customers from pumping their own gas, the attendant refused to venture out in the rain and instead presumably expected her to operate the pump:
“It is important to write rules that well-intentioned people can follow. When we see people struggling to find a way both to comply with the law and accomplish their laudable objectives, we need to ask ourselves whether the law should change to enable them to pursue their efforts in confidence that they are doing so legally.”
With that backdrop, she explained that the current regulatory regime creates a “Catch 22” for new token networks:
“Would-be networks cannot get their tokens out into people’s hands because their tokens are potentially subject to the securities laws. However, would-be networks cannot mature into a functional or decentralized network that is not dependent upon a single person or group to carry out the essential managerial or entrepreneurial efforts unless the tokens are distributed to and freely transferable among potential users, developers, and participants of the network.”
Thus, her concept of a safe harbor proposal “recognizes the need to achieve the investor protection objectives of the securities laws, as well as the need to provide the regulatory flexibility that allows innovation to flourish.” The idea is to both retain protections for token purchasers “by requiring disclosures tailored to their needs” and preserving the application of anti-fraud provisions under the securities laws, while at the same time providing network entrepreneurs “sufficient time to build their networks before having to measure themselves against a decentralization or functionality yardstick.”
Proposed Safe Harbor (Rule 195)
The title of Commissioner Peirce’s proposal is: “Proposed Securities Act Rule 195 – Time-Limited Exemption for Tokens.” The preamble to Rule 195 outlines the basic purpose and operation of the proposed safe harbor, and addresses the question of “maturity” following the three-year grace period:
“[T]his safe harbor is intended to provide Initial Development Teams with a three-year time period within which they can facilitate participation in, and the development of, a functional or decentralized network, exempt from the registration provisions of the federal securities laws so long as the conditions are met. The safe harbor is also designed to protect token purchasers by requiring disclosures tailored to the needs of the purchasers and preserving the application of the anti-fraud provisions of the federal securities laws.
Upon the conclusion of the three-year period, the Initial Development Team must determine whether token transactions involve the offer or sale of a security. Token transactions may not constitute securities transactions if the network has matured to a functioning or decentralized network. The definition of Network Maturity is intended to provide clarity as to when a token transaction should no longer be considered a security transaction but, as always, the analysis will require an evaluation of the particular facts and circumstances.”
The proposal defines “Network Maturity” as a “decentralized or functional network,” which is achieved when the network is either (a) “[n]ot controlled and is not reasonably likely to be controlled or unilaterally changed by any single person, entity, or group of persons or entities under common control,” or (b) “[f]unctional, as demonstrated by the ability of holders to use tokens for the transmission and storage of value, to prove control over the tokens, to participate in an application running on the network, or in a manner consistent with the utility of the network.”
Rule 195 seeks to strike a balance between maintaining investor protection and facilitating blockchain innovation by “exempting (1) the offer and sale of tokens from the Securities Act of 1933, other than the anti-fraud provisions, (2) the tokens from registration under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and (3) persons engaged in certain token transactions from the definitions of ‘exchange,’ ‘broker,’ and ‘dealer’ under the 1934 Act.” However, before the proposed exemption would apply, network developers would need to satisfy five requirements:
- A good faith intention and effort to reach network maturity within three years of the date of the first token sale;
- The disclosure of key information (discussed below) on a publicly-accessible website;
- The token must be sold “for the purpose of facilitating access to, participation on, or the development of the network”;
- A good faith intention and effort to “create liquidity for users”; and
- The filing of a “notice of reliance” on the safe harbor within 15 days of the first token sale.
The disclosure requirement for Rule 195 would require developers to make the following information readily available online to the public:
- Network source code
- Network transaction history
- Token Economics (“[a] narrative description of the purpose of the network, the protocol, and its operation”)
- Development plan for the network
- Token sales and terms
- Initial Development Team and their token ownership
- Secondary trading platforms
- Ongoing sales of tokens by the Initial Development Team
Finally, the proposed Rule makes clear that the anti-fraud provisions—specifically, Section 12(a)(2) and Section 17 of the Securities Act of 1933—would still apply even when a token qualifies for the safe harbor. Commissioner Peirce emphasized that the safe harbor does not immunize developers and the sale of the tokens from federal or state anti-fraud actions, including the making of false, misleading, or incomplete disclosures regarding the tokens.
Clarifying the Contours
On March 2, 2020, Commissioner Peirce participated in a panel discussion in San Francisco on the state of blockchain and cryptocurrency and the emerging regulatory landscape. She reiterated that, while regulators have provided more clarity, there is still a long way to go for blockchain and cryptocurrency regulation, in part because of the struggle to deal with the significant variation across digital assets.
During the discussion, Commissioner Peirce addressed and clarified several aspects of her proposed safe harbor for tokens, including the following. First, regarding section (f) of the Rule 195, which provides for the potential application of the safe harbor to digital assets previously sold pursuant to an exemption, she explained that those who have already launched and distributed tokens would need to consider whether prior token sales were transacted pursuant to an exemption, which in turn could dictate whether they could rely on the proposed safe harbor for future token distribution.
Second, Commissioner Peirce raised the unique difficulties that come with certain token launches where tokens are wrapped in investment contracts, which may look like traditional offerings initially, but that may change when the tokens are used in the network and no longer resemble securities. Notably, while Commission Peirce conceded that it would be a stretch to argue that the securities laws should still apply under such circumstances, SEC Enforcement recently argued to the contrary in the SEC v. Telegram case pending in the Southern District of New York. In that case, the SEC asked the judge to view the sale of an investment contract and subsequent token distribution as “one transaction.”
Third, Commissioner Peirce acknowledged that the definition of what it means for a token network to be “decentralized” and to reach “maturity” needs more refinement. She believes that it will be easier to assess if a network meets that definition after having been in existence for the three-year exemption period.
Finally, regarding Rule 195’s required disclosures of Initial Development Teams and associated token ownership, Commissioner Peirce indicated that the type of individuals contemplated by the safe harbor is similar to those who would fall under Section 16 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. It is often as simple as asking “who is working on the project?” She stressed that one of the reasons for the disclosure requirement is to ensure that developers are not intentionally hiding team members who may have been previously arrested for securities fraud.
All Hands on Deck
Commissioner Peirce has acknowledged that, although the concept of the token safe harbor and the Rule 195 proposal are solely her own, she is only “one of five Commissioners” and hopes to “convince [her] colleagues to add consideration of such an approach to the SEC rulemaking agenda.” Accordingly, she penned a call for commentary and feedback from the blockchain, cryptocurrency, and legal communities “to weigh in and tell me what I have gotten right and what I have gotten wrong.”
The communities appear to be listening. While there has been broad support for the general concept of a safe harbor, there has already been a significant amount of analysis, feedback, and criticism, including an open letter with proposed modifications to the safe harbor.
It is impossible to predict, of course, whether the safe harbor will ever become a reality. But as Commissioner Peirce recognized at the outset of her public safe harbor journey, the renegade pandas in the blockchain and cryptocurrency spheres that operate outside of “conventional” regulatory regimes will continue to “make the life of a regulator especially interesting.” A token safe harbor may be a productive first step to give tokens a genuine chance to become seaworthy.
* * *
Stay tuned to Steptoe’s Blockchain Blog for future updates as we continue to monitor the proposed safe harbor and any related regulatory developments.
Mining Firm Titan Introduces Lumerin, a Project Aiming to Commodify Bitcoin’s Hashpower
On October 21, the bitcoin mining pool operator Titan revealed a new decentralized hashpower routing protocol called Lumerin. The open-source project aims to commodify bitcoin’s hashpower “through smart contracts, making hashpower tradable.”
Bloq’s Mining Arm Titan Announces the Lumerin Protocol
The bitcoin mining operation Titan, a subsidiary of the company Bloq Inc., has announced its decentralized hashpower routing protocol, “Lumerin.” Titan says that bitcoin mining companies “tend to be concentrated in regions that offer cheap electricity, favorable regulation, and stable infrastructure” and it aims to solve centralization via software. The idea is to commodify bitcoin’s processing power and security by leveraging smart contracts.
“The Lumerin Protocol will allow companies and individuals to buy, sell, and deliver hashpower, achieving decentralization through open market dynamics,” Titan’s announcement details. “Furthermore, by making hashpower a transferrable digital commodity, the Lumerin Protocol will provide a foundation for hashpower financialization as well as lending, custody, OTC, and trading services.”
Titan Is Looking for Strategic Partners, Announcement Mentions ‘Other Proof-of-Work Hashpower Products’
Titan was co-founded by the company’s CEO Ryan Condron, former Bitcoin core developer Jeff Garzik, and the founding partner of Tally Capital, Matthew Roszak. Condron says that Titan is a significant development in the bitcoin mining space and it aims to partner with industry leaders as well.
“The new Lumerin brand and clear solution set definitions will support us in providing leading-edge advances that support the Bitcoin mining ecosystem. Titan is providing significant development effort and time to the Lumerin open source project and is actively looking for strategic partners to join us in developing this technology further,” Condron remarked.
While Titan’s other operations will retain the Titan brand, the newly introduced Lumerin open source project will have different software solutions. The announcement details that the project will establish a Lumerin Proxy Node, Lumerin Token, and Lumerin Wallet.
“As a result of these changes, we can now move forward with our vision to create a trustless peer-to-peer global marketplace for bitcoin mining and other proof-of-work hashpower products,” Condron said in a statement. “This will allow anyone to harness the power of crypto through bitcoin mining in a decentralized way,” the Titan CEO added.
What do you think about Titan aiming to commodify bitcoin’s hashpower via smart contracts? Let us know what you think about this subject in the comments section below.
Image Credits: Shutterstock, Pixabay, Wiki Commons
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only. It is not a direct offer or solicitation of an offer to buy or sell, or a recommendation or endorsement of any products, services, or companies. Bitcoin.com does not provide investment, tax, legal, or accounting advice. Neither the company nor the author is responsible, directly or indirectly, for any damage or loss caused or alleged to be caused by or in connection with the use of or reliance on any content, goods or services mentioned in this article.
PlatoAi. Web3 Reimagined. Data Intelligence Amplified.
A Crypto Friendly Future For Australia, Senators Propose New Regulations
The Australian senate committee made 12 proposals to modify the current license and regulations over crypto assets, as well as the laws of taxation. The lawmakers believe Australia could take the lead in the digital economy if the laws were amicable.
The Senate Committee on Australia as a Technology and Financial Center (ATFC) states that the current regulations need to be adapted. As it was stated by the chairman: “The market is asking for regulation, and we are responding while trying to avoid trampling on innovation.”
Last year, Australian tax agents aimed to contact “as many as 350,000 individuals who have traded in cryptocurrency in the last few years.” To make a warning over meeting their tax obligations, as it was reported in News.com.au
Related Reading | Why Australia Has Issued A Warning On Crypto Profits To Investors
The Australian law currently considers cryptocurrencies as an asset, therefore its investors are bound to pay a capital gains tax and report to the ATO if the digital asset is held for more than a year or makes any financial gain.
Back then, news.com.au interviewed H & R Block’s director of tax communications Mark Chapman, who told them that many cryptocurrencies investors “have dabbled in this thing and not realized the tax implications”.
This notice stirred crypto investors and The Select Committee recommends accommodations that bring clarity. For instance, giving an incentive of a 10% of tax discount to the miners who use renewable energy.
As the global digital asset market is projected to grow to $6 billion by 2025, the senators believe that “Given the scale of Australia’s existing industry for custody of traditional assets, there is significant scope for Australia to benefit from becoming a leader in the digital assets space.”
Australia Wants To Attract Crypto Businesses
The committee asked for the recognition of decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs), establishing a new regulatory structure. The senators’ report reads:
“DAOs do not clearly fall within any of Australia’s existing company structures. […] This regulatory uncertainty is preventing the establishment of projects of significant scale in Australia.”
Financial Review quoted the CEO of Blockchain Australia who said that “The recommendation that Australia looks to recognize DAO’s structures is a very strong signal to the world that we are ready to lead this conversation.”
Using the blockchains technology would diminish the need for intermediaries and could turn Australia into a prominent space for blockchain businesses.
The senators also asked Treasury to evaluate the possibilities for a CBDC. This idea has not been well received by the Reserve Bank of Australia before, but opinions might change as many countries are adopting their own and Australia aims to take the lead in the digital currency space.
A survey from last September shows that 1 in every 6 Australians owns cryptocurrency and Bitcoin “remains the most popular one”.
As the tendency of Australians is to diversify their portfolio and the interest keeps growing, the proposed clarity in regulations and taxation will be beneficial for the growth of their crypto industry. Applying the measures should not wait for long to protect the customer’s and investors’ interests.
PlatoAi. Web3 Reimagined. Data Intelligence Amplified.
Indicators that Bitcoin price would truly slump multiple times in the coming months
On October 19, the first Bitcoin (BTC) exchange-traded fund (ETF) made its way to Wall Street, listing ProShares Bitcoin Strategy (BITO) which started trading on the New York Stock Exchange NYSE. The fund saw a little over $1 billion in trading volume at the end of its opening day, while Bitcoin price also rose to a new all-time high of $67,000.
Not too long after however, the spot gains reversed, and by Saturday Bitcoin price had returned to levels even below the $60,000 mark, thereby raising concerns about selloffs — those selloffs that almost routinely follow after a major crypto products launches on Wall Street.
What experts/analysts are saying with regards to Bitcoin Price correction
A renowned independent analyst, Nunya Bizniz took to Twitter in an effort to analyse the present situation based on past events. Recalling two of such major events as the launching of ProShares Bitcoin ETF: firstly, the listing of the first Bitcoin futures on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME) and then the time when Coinbase’s stock (COIN), debuted on the Nasdaq stock exchange.
Each of those times, Bitcoin would rally towards a new all-time high, before plunging to untenable lows.
For instance, Bitcoin first rallied to its then all-time high of $20,000 on Dec. 18, 2017, when CME launched its Bitcoin Futures product. But the launch eventually culminated into Bitcoin plunging to around $3,200 some twelve months later.
In quite a similar fashion, COIN’s debut on Wall Street in April this year, also saw Bitcoin rallying to a new all-time high around $65,000 some ten days after. However, the rise was short lived yet again, bringing BTC to as low as $28,800.
Now despite all of the bearishness usually linked with high-profile Wall Street crypto listings, some analysts are still of high hopes that this time will be different. The likes of Todd Rosenbluth, head of ETF and mutual fund research at CFRA, and Noelle Acheson, head of market insights at crypto trading firm Genesis, believe that Bitcoin ETF’s impressive debut of this month would result in very little downside moves in the spot BTC market.
In all of this though, one thing remains certain. While some experts expect multiple-month slumps, others expect slumps that may not be for too long. So in any case, and from all indications, a slump in price is expected
PlatoAi. Web3 Reimagined. Data Intelligence Amplified.
MEXC Will Launch ARPAUSDT, REEFUSDT, KEEPUSDT & NUUSDT Futures With 6,000 USDT Bonus Giveaway
MEXC Exchange Will Launch BITUSDT Futures With 2,000 USDT Bonus Giveaway
Charity and Community Focused Project ‘TheFloorNFT’ Announces New Artistic Collectibles on Ethereum
Fozeus AMA: An AMA That Is Quite Promising And Interesting!
Ripple CEO Calls Gensler and Clayton’s Meeting Before XRP Lawsuit “Bad Optics,” Here’s Why
TA: Ethereum Breaking This Barrier Could Spark a Significant Surge
Crypto Scammers Take Over Dating Apps Users’ iPhones
Binance Coin, Dogecoin Price Analysis: October 19, 2021
Iain Rogers Joins UK Broker Finveo as New CEO
FinCEN Links More Than $5 Billion in Bitcoin Transactions to Ransomware
Arbitrum extends lead over Optimism as Uniswap posts record volume on L2
THEME: Slow week; literally, economies are slowing down (but not asset prices)
Ausgaben der Qtum Chain Foundation für das dritte Quartal 2021
Ethereum Price Holds Bullish Case Aiming For $4,400
How I made $1300 profit from just $130 in 3 months Trading Crypto
African Nation Ghana Prepares for the Offline Use of Its CBDC E-Cedi
Top 100 Polygon Holders Collectively Own >90% of MATIC Supply
TA: Bitcoin Consolidates Gain: What Could Trigger Fresh Rally
Sanctions Top-5 for the week ending 15 October 2021
Mitsubishi Power Receives Order of Two Gas Turbines for the Hunter Power Project in Australia
Blockchain1 week ago
250,000 traders sign petition to add Shiba Inu (SHIB) on Robinhood
Blockchain1 week ago
APENFT Foundation’s Announcement on Adjusting the APENFT(NFT) Airdrop Strategy
Blockchain1 week ago
Paano Bumili at Magbenta ng CELO at cUSD sa mga Lokal na Exchanges sa Pilipinas
Blockchain1 week ago
Why Bitcoin Could Extend Its Market Dominance As It Approaches $60K
Blockchain1 week ago
Sotheby’s showcases Paris Hilton and Pransky in new NFT platform
Blockchain1 week ago
Roman Holiday by Mucciaccia Gallery
Blockchain1 week ago
Traders need to factor in these aspects when it comes to Solana’s price trajectory
Blockchain5 days ago
New York’s AG Stays Busy, Two Crypto Platforms Shutdown Others Under Investigation