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
res ipsa ☺︎
@resipsa
does the token only serve as membership credentials in this instance?
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
GIGAMΞSH
@gigamesh
It would also represent a claim on a % of the treasury. Early token holders would have a higher claim.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
:grin:
@grin
anything that looks like "a claim on a % of the treasury" would very likely be defined as a security under howey happy to chat in detail if you want. i went through all this shit with LBRY
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
res ipsa ☺︎
@resipsa
my goodness, @grin. LBRY was some of the most pointless enforcement. glad you’re at least here to tell the tale🫂
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
:grin:
@grin
ty. hope to make it less pointless by passing on the knowledeg
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
res ipsa ☺︎
@resipsa
i think about this statement very often. this is the based take and the issues she raises is exactly why the SEC is an unserious organization https://www.sec.gov/news/statement/peirce-statement-lbry-102723
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
GIGAMΞSH
@gigamesh
Wow I somehow hadn't heard of LBRY until today. Thanks for sharing this.
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
