Content
@
1 reply
0 recast
2 reactions
GIGAMΞSH
@gigamesh
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.
6 replies
0 recast
2 reactions
Alex Palmer
@thatalexpalmer.eth
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
2 replies
1 recast
0 reaction
res ipsa ☺︎
@resipsa
does the token only serve as membership credentials in this instance?
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Adam
@adam-
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.
0 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Ben Adamsky 💭
@ba
@cojo.eth
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
tldr (tim reilly)
@tldr
NLA, but when I have reasoned about stuff like this w a few different lawyers, the principle they applied after HOWEY test – to be conservative – was "Could your team technically drain the funds?" Im sure there are approaches to get around that even with central server, but def something to check into
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Sam (crazy candle person) ✦
@samantha
@jrf any thoughts? :)
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
