Founders

Curious what this channel's consensus is on the legal risks of projects that have a token but can't be easily defined as a security.

Ex: A token-gated app that only has value when a broad % of members are actively contributing, but there is no onchain governance and the project relies on a centrally-controlled server.

TLDR: only launch a token *after* the product fully works, never to build the product.

These might help.

musician: gigameshmusic.com | dev: github.com/gigamesh

Productizing RWAfi @plumenetwork. Letting you earn from all RWAs on Plume using https://nest.credit. Hosting /rwa, /plume, /nest and https://palmer.earth

Yep that's my plan. I want to have an initial cohort of users before I create the token. Thanks for the links!

TLDR: only launch a token *after* the product fully works, never to build the product.

These might help.

https://paragraph.xyz/@thatalexpalmer/what-makes-token-security

https://paragraph.xyz/@thatalexpalmer/when-token-is-not-security

janitor@ /middle-mgmt // inquiring in /inquiry // web3 law stuff // f̶r̶e̶e̶ ̶R̶o̶s̶s̶ // free Assange // ☮︎ Ξ ✧

lovelight.eth.limo

It would also represent a claim on a % of the treasury. Early token holders would have a higher claim.

does the token only serve as membership credentials in this instance?

Was part of one of these.
You're better off offering an NFT that has rights and privileges built into it over a token. Less headache than a token if architected properly.

Co-founder @ponder | @survey | Ex   | colinjohnson.io