Marisa
@mtcoppel
1/ Today, @blockchainassn and @fund-defi filed an amicus brief in support of @krakenfx's fight against the SEC. The case is yet another overreach of authority in the SEC’s long campaign to force most digital assets into its jurisdiction. 🧵 https://tinyurl.com/yr2txmnb
1 reply
2 recasts
4 reactions
Marisa
@mtcoppel
2/ We explain how the SEC’s interpretation of Howey has changed over time, consistently contravening history, precedent, and common sense. Without an ongoing contractual arrangement, digital assets are just that – assets. Not securities.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Marisa
@mtcoppel
3/ Their newest theory relies on the existence of an “ecosystem.” According to the SEC, such an asset is a security if that asset’s value grows or declines in tandem with the efforts of the asset’s creator to develop that ecosystem.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Marisa
@mtcoppel
4/ But this would turn any asset surrounded by an ecosystem into a security. Should the SEC be regulating Barbie? Or Pokemon? Think about all the 90s-early 2000s era collectibles that would then fall under SEC jurisdiction. Or even Tesla & the reliance on its charging network.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Marisa
@mtcoppel
5/ If the court were to accept the SEC’s theory – that an investment contract exists when a buyer believes an asset will rise in value due to a creator or seller’s efforts or statements – the SEC would have nearly unlimited jurisdiction over all commercial transactions.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Marisa
@mtcoppel
6/ Statements or beliefs on their own do not give rise to the kind of ongoing obligation that makes an asset become an investment contract. More is needed.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
