Connect with us


Proposed SEC Safe Harbor Could Provide New Tokens With an Enforcement Grace Period Before Hitting Open Water

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… Continue Reading

Republished by Plato



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.



Tim Draper Handpicks Netflix as the Next Company to Purchase Bitcoin

Republished by Plato



Popular venture capitalist and Bitcoin bull Timothy “Tim” Draper predicted that major online streaming platform Netflix could be the next company to join the bitcoin buying bandwagon.

Next Bitcoin Investor Could Be Netflix

Speaking in a recent episode of the Unstoppable Podcast, Tim Draper stated that Netflix could be the next in line to add bitcoin to its balance sheet. According to him, the company’s co-founder and co-CEO, Reed Hastings, makes Netflix a likely bitcoin investor. Draper buttressed his point, saying:

“I think Reed Hastings is a very innovative guy and has a lot of creative thinking and I think he still controls the reins at Netflix. And so I think that might be the next big one to fall.”

Meanwhile, the venture capitalist mentioned social media giant Facebook, as well as other major companies like Apple, and Google, as likely candidates to invest in bitcoin. However, Draper noted that the companies were instead trying to create a centralized currency of their own.

Draper also stated that if he was the chief financial officer (CFO) of any major organization, he would advise the company to allocate a portion of their portfolio to bitcoin. According to the BTC proponent, bitcoin served as a hedge against inflation.

Since Tesla’s billion-dollar bitcoin investment, there have been speculations about which company would emulate Tesla’s move. Increased institutional interest in bitcoin is largely responsible for BTC’s bullish momentum. Meanwhile, Firms like Microstrategy and Square recently added to their bitcoin holdings.

Amazon Likely to Accept Bitcoin as a Payment Method?

Apart from pitching Netflix as the next possible bitcoin investor, the venture capitalist stated that the retail giant Amazon could start accepting bitcoin. Adding that, people could use the flagship cryptocurrency to purchase products on Amazon.

Back in February, there were reports that Amazon was looking to introduce a new project that would enable customers to convert cash into digital currency. While the project would launch in Mexico, the company did not state what digital assets it would support, although there were speculations that the company may not use popular crypto-assets like BTC or ether.

While also speaking on bitcoin’s price target, Draper said:

“The current currency holdings around the world in dollars is about $100 trillion and bitcoin’s market cap is just reaching a trillion now. So there’s no reason it can’t go up a 100 fold. It’s not like it is going to completely replace the dollar. Although I think people are going to laugh when they are trying to buy things with dollars in the future.”

The venture capitalist made a prediction earlier in 2020 that the price of bitcoin would reach $250,000 by the end of 2022 or early in 2023.

Binance Futures 50 USDT FREE Voucher: Use this link to register & get 10% off fees and 50 USDT when trading 500 USDT (limited offer).

PrimeXBT Special Offer: Use this link to register & enter CRYPTOPOTATO35 code to get 35% free bonus on any deposit up to 1 BTC.

You Might Also Like:


Continue Reading


Ripple is committed to San Francisco, says co-founder Chris Larsen

Republished by Plato



In October last year, Ripple co-founder Chris Larsen said that the firm may consider relocating to other countries citing the lack of regulatory clarity in the United States. Since then, many have speculated where the firm’s new headquarters will be located. However, amid a lawsuit with SEC regarding an alleged illegal securities offering, and XRP’s dwindling price, Larsen made a new announcement recently that stated that the firm was here to stay. 

Speaking to The San Francisco Chronicle, co-founder said that Ripple’s global headquarter will remain in San Francisco. He added: 

We’re committed to the city. It’s got the most diversity, creativity…it’s got the critical mass.

Earlier, CEO of Ripple, Brad Garlinghouse, hinted at a possibility that Ripple could move out of the US, given its “lack” of a regulatory framework. He stressed that the country was “out of sync” and needed to implement a clear regulatory framework regarding crypto.

At the time, the CEO said that he was considering whether Ripple would benefit from relocating to a country where regulations were more clear. He admitted to being impressed by how the UK and other G20 nations including Singapore, Japan, and the UAE had “clear regulatory frameworks” that allowed for “healthy markets to develop.”

Meanwhile, another leading crypto firm in the neighborhood has decided to do away with its headquarters altogether. Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong said that amid the firm’s work from home policies they choose not to have a base in San Francisco, but will continue to keep their offices open. Stating that the company is “decentralized” the CEO added:

As we’ve moved to a remote first environment, we realized that we no longer have a headquarters located in any one city.

Sign Up For Our Newsletter


Continue Reading


3 key Ethereum price metrics show pro traders are aiming for $2K ETH

Republished by Plato



On Feb. 20, Ether (ETH) price rallied to a new high at $2,015 and this caused multiple indicators to display signs of excessive optimism. While the excitement could be easily justified by Ether’s  year-to-date 176% gain, these warning signs should not be ignored.

On of the primary driving factors of the current bullish sentiment is the launch of CME ETH futures and Grayscale Investments ETH Trust reaching $6.3 billion assets under management. The DeFi phenomenon also continues as there is currently more than $21 billion worth of Ether locked in DeFi.

Crypto Fear & Greed Index. Source:

Currently, the Crypto Fear & Greed Index is at 93, indicating “Extreme Greed” according to its methodology. Many traders use the metric as a counter trading signal, meaning, the extreme fear level can be a sign that investors are bullish and a buying opportunity is present. In contrast, when investors are getting too greedy, it could be a sign that the market is due for a correction.

Unlike the excessively leveraged retail traders, the more experienced market makers and whales hs been skeptical of the never-ending rally in Ether. Regardless of the rationale for the price peak, the 36% price correction that followed was accelerated by large liquidations.

Ether futures contracts aggregate liquidations. Source:

The liquidation of $2 billion in long futures contracts from Feb. 19 to Feb. 23 represented 28% of the total open interest. Thus, one should expect significant deterioration in market sentiment, as depicted on the previous Fear & Greed indicator.

Surprisingly, none of that happened on the Ether derivatives markets, as both futures contracts premium (contango) and the options skew remained bullish.

The futures premium held very healthy levels

By measuring the expense gap between futures and the regular spot market, a trader can gauge the level of bullishness in the market.

The 3-month futures should usually trade with a 10% or higher premium versus regular spot exchanges. Whenever this indicator fades or turns negative, this is an alarming red flag. This situation is known as backwardation and indicates that the market is turning bearish.

OKEx 3-month ETH futures basis. Source:

The above chart shows that the indicator peaked at 39% on Feb. 20 as Ether touched its all-time high. Nevertheless, it has kept above 16% during the entire correction down to $1,300. This data shows that professional traders remained confident in Ether’s price potential.

The options skew remained neutral-to-bullish

When analyzing options, the 25% delta skew is the single-most relevant gauge. This indicator compares similar call (buy) and put (sell) options side-by-side.

It will turn negative when the put options premium is higher than similar-risk call options. A negative skew translates to a higher cost of downside protection and indicating bullishness.

The opposite holds when market makers are bearish, causing the 25% delta skew indicator to gain positive ground.

ETH options 25% delta skew. Source:

Over the past month, there hasn’t been a single incident of a sustainable positive delta skew. Therefore, there is no evidence that option traders demanded more significant premiums for downside protection.

This data is very encouraging, considering that Ethereum faced a heavy sell-off but the futures and options metrics discussed above held bullish levels during the downturn.

As Ether managed to recover quickly from its recent $1,300 dip, investors gained further confidence that the uptrend had not been broken.

The views and opinions expressed here are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of Cointelegraph. Every investment and trading move involves risk. You should conduct your own research when making a decision.


Continue Reading
Blockchain2 days ago

Why Mark Cuban is looking forward to Ethereum’s use cases

Blockchain3 days ago

Google Finance adds dedicated ‘crypto’ tab featuring Bitcoin, Ether, Litecoin

Blockchain11 hours ago

Amplifying Her Voice

Blockchain3 days ago

NBA Top Shot leads NFT explosion with $230M in sales

Blockchain4 days ago

Economist warns of dystopia if ‘Bitcoin Aristocrats’ become reality

Blockchain4 days ago

Inverse Finance seizes tokens, ships code: Launches stablecoin lending protocol

Blockchain3 days ago

How KuCoin Shares (KCS) Can Create a Stream of Passive Income

Blockchain4 days ago

Here are 6 DEX tokens that have seen exponential growth in 2021

Blockchain4 days ago

6 Questions for Kain Warwick of Synthetix

Blockchain3 days ago

Korean Government To Levy Taxes On Bitcoin Capital Gains Starting 2022

Blockchain3 days ago

Litecoin, Monero, Dash Price Analysis: 28 February

Blockchain5 days ago

PARSIQ Integrates Solana Blockchain on its Platform

Blockchain4 days ago

XRP, STEEM, Enjin Price Analysis: 27 February

Blockchain4 days ago

3 reasons why Reef Finance, Bridge Mutual and Morpheus Network are rallying

Blockchain15 hours ago

Libra Coin – A New Digital Currency Developed by FACEBOOK

Blockchain5 days ago

‘Bitcoin could reach $1 million or $1, and may do both of those’

Blockchain3 days ago

Top 5 cryptocurrencies to watch this week: BTC, BNB, DOT, XEM, MIOTA

Blockchain3 days ago

Polkadot, Cosmos, Algorand Price Analysis: 28 February

Blockchain15 hours ago

Bitcoin Halving: Definitive Guide (In Just 5 Minutes)

Blockchain5 days ago

What are the risks of trading cryptocurrencies?