Distributed Ledger Technology - Reverse-Merger.com

The SEC’s Strategic Hub For Innovation And Financial Technology

Posted by Securities Attorney Laura Anthony | December 11, 2018

Responding to the growing necessity, in mid-October the SEC launched a Strategic Hub for Innovation and Financial Technology (FinHub). The FinHub will serve as a resource for public engagement on the SEC’s FinTech-related issues and initiatives, such as distributed ledger technology (including digital assets), automated investment advice, digital marketplace financing, and artificial intelligence/machine learning. The FinHub also replaces and consolidates several SEC internal working groups that have been working on these matters.

According to the SEC press release on the matter, the FinHub will:

Provide a portal for the industry and the public to engage directly with SEC staff on innovative ideas and technological developments;
Publicize information regarding the SEC’s activities and initiatives involving FinTech on the FinHub web page;
Engage with the public through publications and events, including a FinTech Forum focusing on distributed ledger technology and digital assets planned for 2019;
Act as a platform and clearinghouse for SEC staff to acquire and disseminate information and FinTech-related knowledge within the agency; and
Serve as a liaison to other domestic and international regulators regarding emerging technologies in financial, regulatory, and supervisory systems.

Although I’m sure FinHub supports engagement in all FinTech areas, the website itself is broken into four categories: (i) blockchain/distributed ledger; (ii) digital marketplace financing; (iii) automated investment advice; and (iv) artificial intelligence/machine learning. Under each category the SEC has tabs with information such as regulations, speeches and presentations, opportunities for public input and empirical information.

Blockchain/Distributed Ledger

Blockchain and distributed ledger generally refer to databases that maintain information across a network of computers in a decentralized or distributed manner. Blockchains are often used to issue and transfer ownership of digital assets that may be securities, depending on the facts and circumstances.

Clearly illustrating the need for regulatory initiatives, the “regulation, registration and related matters” tab under blockchain/distributed ledger is limited to public speeches, testimony and pronouncements, and enforcement actions, and not regulation (as none exists). Although certainly we in the community give public statements weight, they actually have no binding legal authority. The speeches, testimony and pronouncements that the SEC lists in this tab, and as such the ones that the SEC gives the most weight to, include (i) Chair Clayton’s testimony on virtual currencies to the Senate banking committee (see HERE); (ii) William Hinman’s speech on digital asset transactions (see HERE); (iii) statement on potentially unlawful online platforms for trading digital assets (see HERE); and (iv) remarks before the AICPA National Conference of Banks & Savings institutions (see HERE and HERE).

Providing more legal guidance are the enforcement proceedings. The SEC has provided a running list of all cyber enforcement actions broken down by category including digital asset/initial coin offerings; account intrusions; hacking/insider trading; market manipulation; safeguarding customer information; public company disclosure and controls; and trading suspensions.

Digital Marketplace Financing

Digital marketplace financing refers to fundraising using mass-marketed digital media – i.e., crowdfunding. In this category, the SEC includes traditional Title III Crowdfunding under Regulation CF and platforms for the marketing of Regulation D, Rule 506(c) offerings for the offering of debt or equity financing. Under the Regulation tab the SEC includes Regulation CF and the SEC’s Regulation CF homepage, including investor bulletins.

The SEC does not include a link to Rule 506(c) or Section 4(c) of the Securities Act, which provide an exemption for advertised offerings where all purchasers are accredited investors, and the platforms or web intermediaries that host such offerings, respectively. However, many securities token offerings are being completed relying on these exemptions from the registration provisions – in fact, more so than Regulation CF which is limited to $1,070,000 in any twelve-month period. In my opinion, this is a miss on the site layout.

This area of the FinHub website also provides a link to one of the first published SEC investor bulletins on initial coin offerings, including some high-level considerations to avoid a scam. Finally, this area provides a link to a Regulation CF empirical information page published by the SEC. Unfortunately I do not find the data to be user-friendly and could not determine how many, if any, Regulation CF offerings have included digitized assets or FinTech-related issuers.

Automated Investment Advice

Automated investment advisers or robo-advisers are investment advisers that typically provide asset management services through online algorithmic-based programs. Since their introduction, the SEC has been involved with regulating these market participants. Under this section, the SEC provides links to guidance related to robo-advisors.

Robo-advisers, like all registered investment advisers, are subject to the substantive and fiduciary obligations of the Advisers Act. However, since robo-advisers rely on algorithms, provide advisory services over the internet, and may offer limited, if any, direct human interaction to their clients, their unique business models may raise certain considerations when seeking to comply with the Advisers Act. In particular, the Advisors Act requires that a client receive information that is critical to his or her ability to make informed decisions about engaging, and then managing the relationship with, the investment adviser. As a fiduciary, an investment adviser has a duty to make full and fair disclosure of all material facts to, and to employ reasonable care to avoid misleading, clients. The information provided must be sufficiently specific so that a client is able to understand the investment adviser’s business practices and conflicts of interests. Such information must be presented in a manner that clients are likely to read (if in writing) and understand.

Since robo-advisors provide information and disclosure over the internet without human interaction and the benefit of back-and-forth discussions, the disclosures must be extra robust and provide thorough material on the use of an algorithm. The SEC’s guidance on the subject contains a fairly thorough list of matters that should be included in the client information.

Artificial Intelligence/Machine Learning

Machine learning and artificial intelligence refer to methods of using computers to mine and analyze large data sets. The SEC includes links to a few speeches and presentations under this tab. The SEC uses machine learning and AI in numerous ways, including market risk assessment and helping identify risks that could result in enforcement proceedings such as the detection of potential investment adviser misconduct.

Further Reading on DLT/Blockchain and ICOs

For a review of the 2014 case against BTC Trading Corp. for acting as an unlicensed broker-dealer for operating a bitcoin trading platform, see HERE.

For an introduction on distributed ledger technology, including a summary of FINRA’s Report on Distributed Ledger Technology and Implication of Blockchain for the Securities Industry, see HERE.

For a discussion on the Section 21(a) Report on the DAO investigation, statements by the Divisions of Corporation Finance and Enforcement related to the investigative report and the SEC’s Investor Bulletin on ICOs, see HERE.

For a summary of SEC Chief Accountant Wesley R. Bricker’s statements on ICOs and accounting implications, see HERE.

For an update on state-distributed ledger technology and blockchain regulations, see HERE.

For a summary of the SEC and NASAA statements on ICOs and updates on enforcement proceedings as of January 2018, see HERE.

For a summary of the SEC and CFTC joint statements on cryptocurrencies, including The Wall Street Journal op-ed article and information on the International Organization of Securities Commissions statement and warning on ICOs, see HERE.

For a summary of the SEC and CFTC testimony to the United States Senate Committee on Banking Housing and Urban Affairs hearing on “Virtual Currencies: The Oversight Role of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission,” see HERE.

To learn about SAFTs and the issues with the SAFT investment structure, see HERE.

To learn about the SEC’s position and concerns with crypto-related funds and ETFs, see HERE.

For more information on the SEC’s statements on online trading platforms for cryptocurrencies and more thoughts on the uncertainty and the need for even further guidance in this space, see HERE.

For a discussion of William Hinman’s speech related to ether and bitcoin and guidance in cryptocurrencies in general, see HERE.

For a review of FinCEN’s role in cryptocurrency offerings and money transmitter businesses, see HERE.

For a review of Wyoming’s blockchain legislation, see HERE.

For a review of FINRA’s request for public comment on FinTech in general and blockchain, see HERE.

For my three-part case study on securities tokens, including a discussion of bounty programs and dividend or airdrop offerings, see HERE; HERE; and HERE.

For a summary of three recent speeches by SEC Commissioner Hester Peirce, including her views on crypto and blockchain, and the SEC’s denial of a crypto-related fund or ETF, see HERE.

The Author
Laura Anthony, Esq.
Founding Partner
Anthony L.G., PLLC
A Corporate Law Firm
LAnthony@AnthonyPLLC.com

Securities attorney Laura Anthony and her experienced legal team provide ongoing corporate counsel to small and mid-size private companies, OTC and exchange traded public companies as well as private companies going public on the Nasdaq, NYSE American or over-the-counter market, such as the OTCQB and OTCQX. For more than two decades Anthony L.G., PLLC has served clients providing fast, personalized, cutting-edge legal service. The firm’s reputation and relationships provide invaluable resources to clients including introductions to investment bankers, broker-dealers, institutional investors and other strategic alliances. The firm’s focus includes, but is not limited to, compliance with the Securities Act of 1933 offer sale and registration requirements, including private placement transactions under Regulation D and Regulation S and PIPE Transactions, securities token offerings and initial coin offerings, Regulation A/A+ offerings, as well as registration statements on Forms S-1, S-3, S-8 and merger registrations on Form S-4; compliance with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, including registration on Form 10, reporting on Forms 10-Q, 10-K and 8-K, and 14C Information and 14A Proxy Statements; all forms of going public transactions; mergers and acquisitions including both reverse mergers and forward mergers; applications to and compliance with the corporate governance requirements of securities exchanges including Nasdaq and NYSE American; general corporate; and general contract and business transactions. Ms. Anthony and her firm represent both target and acquiring companies in merger and acquisition transactions, including the preparation of transaction documents such as merger agreements, share exchange agreements, stock purchase agreements, asset purchase agreements and reorganization agreements. The ALG legal team assists Pubcos in complying with the requirements of federal and state securities laws and SROs such as FINRA for 15c2-11 applications, corporate name changes, reverse and forward splits and changes of domicile. Ms. Anthony is also the author of SecuritiesLawBlog.com, the small-cap and middle market’s top source for industry news, and the producer and host of LawCast.com, Corporate Finance in Focus. In addition to many other major metropolitan areas, the firm currently represents clients in New York, Los Angeles, Miami, Boca Raton, West Palm Beach, Atlanta, Phoenix, Scottsdale, Charlotte, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Washington, D.C., Denver, Tampa, Detroit and Dallas.

Ms. Anthony is a member of various professional organizations including the Crowdfunding Professional Association (CfPA), Palm Beach County Bar Association, the Florida Bar Association, the American Bar Association and the ABA committees on Federal Securities Regulations and Private Equity and Venture Capital. She is a supporter of several community charities including siting on the board of directors of the American Red Cross for Palm Beach and Martin Counties, and providing financial support to the Susan Komen Foundation, Opportunity, Inc., New Hope Charities, the Society of the Four Arts, the Norton Museum of Art, Palm Beach County Zoo Society, the Kravis Center for the Performing Arts and several others. She is also a financial and hands-on supporter of Palm Beach Day Academy, one of Palm Beach’s oldest and most respected educational institutions. She currently resides in Palm Beach with her husband and daughter.

Ms. Anthony is an honors graduate from Florida State University College of Law and has been practicing law since 1993.

Contact Anthony L.G., PLLC. Inquiries of a technical nature are always encouraged.

Follow Anthony L.G., PLLC on Facebook, LinkedIn, YouTube, Pinterest and Twitter.

Listen toour podcast on iTunes Podcast channel.

law·cast

Noun

Lawcast is derived from the term podcast and specifically refers to a series of news segments that explain the technical aspects of corporate finance and securities law. The accepted interpretation of lawcast is most commonly used when referring to LawCast.com, Corporate Finance in Focus. Example; “LawCast expounds on NASDAQ listing requirements.”

Anthony L.G., PLLC makes this general information available for educational purposes only. The information is general in nature and does not constitute legal advice. Furthermore, the use of this information, and the sending or receipt of this information, does not create or constitute an attorney-client relationship between us. Therefore, your communication with us via this information in any form will not be considered as privileged or confidential.

This information is not intended to be advertising, and Anthony L.G., PLLC does not desire to represent anyone desiring representation based upon viewing this information in a jurisdiction where this information fails to comply with all laws and ethical rules of that jurisdiction. This information may only be reproduced in its entirety (without modification) for the individual reader’s personal and/or educational use and must include this notice.

« Proposed Rule Changes To Simplify Registered Debt Offerings Nasdaq Amends Its 20% Dilution Shareholder Approval Rule »

Wyoming’s Blockchain Legislation

Posted by Securities Attorney Laura Anthony | July 31, 2018 Tags: Wyoming’s Blockchain Legislation

Wyoming continues to position itself as a business-friendly state most recently by passing groundbreaking blockchain legislation defining cryptocurrency coins or tokens as a whole new asset class separate from securities and commodities. While it is unlikely that Wyoming’s new statutes will impact the SEC’s view that most, if not all, cryptocurrencies, or at least those issued to investors or used for capital raising, are securities, or the CFTC’s view that cryptocurrencies that are used as a medium of exchange, are a commodity, Wyoming has done what federal lawmakers have not yet endeavored – created comprehensive blockchain legislation.

In March 2018, Wyoming passed five separate bills addressing securities, corporate, banking and tax matters which could entice cryptocurrency and blockchain businesses to locate within the state. The statutes are part of an initiative in Wyoming called ENDOW – Economically Needed Diversity Options for Wyoming.

HB 19

Wyoming House Bill 19 provides an exemption for virtual currency, including bitcoin and ethereum, used within Wyoming from money transmitter laws and regulations subject to providing certain specified verification authority to the Wyoming Secretary of State and Wyoming Banking Commissioner. The specified verification authority includes representations, warranties and undertakings by the issuer of “utility tokens” to confirm beneficial ownership of the token and to prevent unauthorized or fraudulent duplication of the token by third parties.

HB 19 defines a “virtual currency” as “any type of digital representation of value that: (i) is used as a medium of exchange, unit of account or store of value; and (ii) is not recognized as legal tender by the United States government.”

As a reminder, the CFTC has regulatory oversight over futures, options, and derivatives contracts on virtual currencies and has oversight to pursue claims of fraud or manipulation involving a virtual currency traded in interstate commerce. Beyond instances of fraud or manipulation, the CFTC generally does not oversee “spot” or cash market exchanges and transactions involving virtual currencies that do not utilize margin, leverage or financing. Rather, these “exchanges” are regulated as payment processors or money transmitters under state law.

However, despite the Wyoming state law exemption, businesses which issue or exchange these tokens would still be subject to FinCEN’s regulations and the requirements to comply with the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA). The BSA requires virtual currency exchangers and administrators, including those businesses that issue a virtual currency in exchange for other virtual currencies, fiat currency or types of value, to complete anti-money laundering (AML), know your customer (KYC) and other procedures to combat the financing of terrorism and prevent or detect the abuse of virtual currency to facilitate cyber-crime, money laundering, terrorist financing, black market sales of illegal or illicit products and services and other high-tech crimes. For more on FinCEN and the BSA, see HERE.

HB 70

Wyoming House Bill 70 removes utility tokens from specified securities and money transmission laws. In particular, any person that develops, sells or facilitates the exchange of an open blockchain utility token would not be required to comply with specified securities and money transmission laws subject to providing specified verification authority. The purpose of the statute is to make clear that utility tokens issued for non-investment purposes, are exempt from the Wyoming securities laws including registration and exemption provisions and broker-dealer registration requirements.

HB 70 defines an “open blockchain token” as a digital unit which is: (i) created (a) in response to the verification or collection of a specified number of transactions relating to a digital ledger or database, (b) by deploying computer code to a blockchain network that allows for the creation of digital tokens or other units, or (c) using any combination of (a) and (b); (ii) recorded in a digital ledger or database that is chronological, consensus-based, decentralized and mathematically verified, especially related to the supply of units and their distributions; and (iii) capable of being traded or transferred between persons without an intermediary or custodian of value.

HB 70 provides that the purpose of the token must be for “a consumptive purpose, which shall only be exchangeable for, or provided for the receipt of, goods, services or content, including rights of access to goods, services or content.”

Furthermore, HB 70 would not apply where the developer or seller of the token sold the token to the initial buyer as a financial investment. The requirement that the token not be an investment can only be satisfied if: (i) the developer or seller does not market the token as a financial investment; and (ii) at least one of the following is true: (a) the developer or seller reasonably believed that it sold the token for a consumptive purpose; (b) the token has a consumptive purpose that is available at the time of sale and can be used at or near the time of sale; (c) if the token does not have a consumptive purpose at the time of sale, the token is prevented from being resold until the consumptive purpose is available; or (d) the developer or seller takes other reasonable precautions to prevent the buyers from purchasing the token as a financial investment.

The SEC has been clear in numerous statements that it believes that tokens that are issued for the purpose of capital raising and an increase in value, are securities offerings that must comply with the federal securities laws. The SEC’s position relates to factors such as the method of issuance and sale of the tokens, use of proceeds, investment intent and expectation of profit, ability to increase value, whether the “utility” has been built out or established, and ability for secondary trading. The SEC has specifically not taken into account the ultimate utility value of the token, nor directly answered the oft asked question of whether a token that is issued in a securities offering, can then morph into a commodity or other asset class, not subject to the securities laws. It is my view, and the general view of the marketplace, that “utility tokens” can be sold in a “securities offering.”

Although the Wyoming statute attempts to address the investment intent, and even appears to attempt to address the SEC main criteria, I would suggest that issuers of any tokens should continue to comply with the federal securities laws until there is further guidance and certainty at the federal level.

SF 111

SF 111 provides that virtual currency is not subject to taxation as “property” in Wyoming. That is, virtual currency would be treated as personal property, not subject to Wyoming property taxes. SF 111 amends a prior statute that exempted money and cash on hand, currency, gold, silver and related items by adding virtual currencies. Like HB 19, SF 111 defines a “virtual currency” as “any type of digital representation of value that: (i) is used as a medium of exchange, unit of account or store of value; and (ii) is not recognized as legal tender by the United States government.”

HB 101

HB 101 allows for the maintenance of corporate records of Wyoming entities via blockchain that utilizes electronic keys, network signatures and digital receipts. In particular, the Act authorizes the use of electronic networks or databases for the creation or maintenance of corporate records, authorizes the use of a data address to identify shareholders, authorizes the acceptance of shareholder votes if signed by a network signature that corresponds to a data address and specifies the requirements for the use of electronic networks and databases. In addition, the Act requires the secretary of state to review and update its rules for consistency.

HB 126

HB 126 allows the creation and use of “series LLC’s.” Delaware is well known for its series LLC statute. Series LLC have become popular in the blockchain space and accordingly it is thought that this will attract blockchain-based businesses.

Further Reading on DLT/Blockchain and ICOs

For a review of the 2014 case against BTC Trading Corp. for acting as an unlicensed broker-dealer for operating a bitcoin trading platform, see HERE.

For an introduction on distributed ledger technology, including a summary of FINRA’s Report on Distributed Ledger Technology and Implication of Blockchain for the Securities Industry, see HERE.

For a summary of SEC Chief Accountant Wesley R. Bricker’s statements on ICOs and accounting implications, see HERE.

For an update on state-distributed ledger technology and blockchain regulations, see HERE.

For a summary of the SEC and NASAA statements on ICOs and updates on enforcement proceedings as of January 2018, see HERE.

For a review of the CFTC’s role and position on cryptocurrencies, see HERE.

To learn about SAFTs and the issues with the SAFT investment structure, see HERE.

To learn about the SEC’s position and concerns with crypto-related funds and ETFs, see HERE.

For more information on platforms that trade cryptocurrencies and more on the continued regulatory confusion in the space, see HERE.

For information on FinCEN’s role and requirements related to the cryptocurrency marketplace, including requirements for issuers of ICOs, see HERE.

The Author

Laura Anthony, Esq.
Founding Partner
Legal & Compliance, LLC
Corporate, Securities and Going Public Attorneys
330 Clematis Street, Suite 217
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Phone: 800-341-2684 – 561-514-0936
Fax: 561-514-0832
LAnthony@LegalAndCompliance.com
www.LegalAndCompliance.com
www.LawCast.com

Securities attorney Laura Anthony and her experienced legal team provides ongoing corporate counsel to small and mid-size private companies, OTC and exchange traded issuers as well as private companies going public on the NASDAQ, NYSE MKT or over-the-counter market, such as the OTCQB and OTCQX. For nearly two decades Legal & Compliance, LLC has served clients providing fast, personalized, cutting-edge legal service. The firm’s reputation and relationships provide invaluable resources to clients including introductions to investment bankers, broker dealers, institutional investors and other strategic alliances. The firm’s focus includes, but is not limited to, compliance with the Securities Act of 1933 offer sale and registration requirements, including private placement transactions under Regulation D and Regulation S and PIPE Transactions as well as registration statements on Forms S-1, S-8 and S-4; compliance with the reporting requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, including registration on Form 10, reporting on Forms 10-Q, 10-K and 8-K, and 14C Information and 14A Proxy Statements; Regulation A/A+ offerings; all forms of going public transactions; mergers and acquisitions including both reverse mergers and forward mergers, ; applications to and compliance with the corporate governance requirements of securities exchanges including NASDAQ and NYSE MKT; crowdfunding; corporate; and general contract and business transactions. Moreover, Ms. Anthony and her firm represents both target and acquiring companies in reverse mergers and forward mergers, including the preparation of transaction documents such as merger agreements, share exchange agreements, stock purchase agreements, asset purchase agreements and reorganization agreements. Ms. Anthony’s legal team prepares the necessary documentation and assists in completing the requirements of federal and state securities laws and SROs such as FINRA and DTC for 15c2-11 applications, corporate name changes, reverse and forward splits and changes of domicile. Ms. Anthony is also the author of SecuritiesLawBlog.com, the OTC Market’s top source for industry news, and the producer and host of LawCast.com, the securities law network. In addition to many other major metropolitan areas, the firm currently represents clients in New York, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, Miami, Boca Raton, West Palm Beach, Atlanta, Phoenix, Scottsdale, Charlotte, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Washington, D.C., Denver, Tampa, Detroit and Dallas.

Contact Legal & Compliance LLC. Technical inquiries are always encouraged.

Follow me on Facebook, LinkedIn, YouTube, Google+, Pinterest and Twitter.

Legal & Compliance, LLC makes this general information available for educational purposes only. The information is general in nature and does not constitute legal advice. Furthermore, the use of this information, and the sending or receipt of this information, does not create or constitute an attorney-client relationship between us. Therefore, your communication with us via this information in any form will not be considered as privileged or confidential.

This information is not intended to be advertising, and Legal & Compliance, LLC does not desire to represent anyone desiring representation based upon viewing this information in a jurisdiction where this information fails to comply with all laws and ethical rules of that jurisdiction. This information may only be reproduced in its entirety (without modification) for the individual reader’s personal and/or educational use and must include this notice.

« Proposed SPAC Rule Changes SEC Issues Additional C&DI On Use Of Non-GAAP Measures »

The SEC Has Provided Guidance On Ether and Bitcoin, Sort Of

Posted by Securities Attorney Laura Anthony | June 19, 2018 Tags: Bitcoin, Ether, SEC, Sort Of, The SEC Has Provided Guidance On Ether and Bitcoin

On June 14, 2018, William Hinman, the Director of the SEC Division of Corporation Finance, gave a speech at Yahoo Finance’s All Markets Summit in which he made two huge revelations for the crypto marketplace. The first is that he believes a cryptocurrency issued in a securities offering could later be purchased and sold in transactions not subject to the securities laws. The second is that Ether and Bitcoin are not currently securities. Also, for the first time, Hinman gives the marketplace guidance on how to structure a token or coin such that it might not be a security.

While this gives the marketplace much-needed guidance on the topic, a speech by an executive with the SEC has no legal force. As a result, the blogs and press responding to Mr. Hinman’s speech have been mixed. Personally, I think it is a significant advancement in the regulatory uncertainty surrounding the crypto space and a signal that more constructive guidance will soon follow. I will summarize the entire speech later in this blog, but first right to the most salient point.

Although a speech by an SEC official does not have legal weight, it does give practitioners a firm foot on which to proceed. William Hinman is the Director of the Division of Corporation Finance (“CorpFin”), whose responsibility includes reviewing and commenting on SEC filings, a topic I’ve written about before. As described in my recent blog on the subject (see HERE), when responding to SEC comments, a company may also “go up the ladder,” so to speak, in its discussion with the CorpFin review staff. Such further discussions are not discouraged or seen as an adversarial attack in any way. For instance, if the company does not understand or agree with a comment, it may first talk to the reviewer. If that does not resolve the question, they may then ask to talk to the particular person who prepared the comment or directly with the legal branch chief or accounting branch chief identified in the letter. A company may even then proceed to speak directly with the assistant director, deputy director, and then even director.

Related to Bitcoin, Director Hinman stated, “…when I look at Bitcoin today, I do not see a central third party whose efforts are a key determining factor in the enterprise. The network on which Bitcoin functions is operational and appears to have been decentralized for some time, perhaps from inception. Applying the disclosure regime of the federal securities laws to the offer and resale of Bitcoin would seem to add little value.” Similarly, related to Ether, Mr. Hinman stated, “…putting aside the fundraising that accompanied the creation of Ether, based on my understanding of the present state of Ether, the Ethereum network and its decentralized structure, current offers and sales of Ether are not securities transactions.”

As a direct result of these statements, at least 2 of our clients, with our support, have shifted how they will proceed with Regulation A offerings in which tokens are being offered, and Bitcoin and Ether expected to be accepted as a form of payment. Prior to Mr. Hinman’s comments, CorpFin issued comments to our clients, which comment letters gave an indication of the progression of the SEC’s thinking. In particular, in an earlier letter the SEC comment was in relevant part as follows:

We note that you will accept Bitcoin, Ether, Litecoin or Bitcoin Cash as payment for your common stock. Please disclose the mechanics of the transaction. For example, explain the following:

whether the digital assets are securities and, where you have determined they are, how you will structure each individual transaction so that you are in compliance with the federal securities laws;
disclose how long the company would typically hold these digital assets, some of which may be securities, before converting to U.S. dollars;
include risk factor disclosure discussing the impact of holding such assets and/or accepting this form of payment, including price volatility and liquidity risks as well as risks related to the fragmentation, potential for manipulation, and general lack of regulation underlying these digital asset markets; and
disclose how you will hold the digital assets that you may receive in this offering as payment in exchange for shares of your common stock. If you intend to act as custodian of these digital assets, some of which may be securities, please tell us whether you intend to register as a custodian with state or federal regulators and the nature of the registration.

The comment letter included many other points on cybersecurity, price volatility, risk factors and other issues not related to whether the Bitcoin or Ether were a security. In a recent comment letter for a different client, also offering tokens in a Regulation A offering and accepting Bitcoin and Ether as payment, the SEC did not issue any questions as to whether Bitcoin or Ether were a security, but did include substantially the same questions related to cybersecurity, price volatility, risk factors and other business points.

The SEC CorpFin is pragmatic in its approach and despite frustrations at times, would not allow its Division Director to make public statements and then allow its staff to issue comments or take positions that were in direct contravention to those statements. Keep in mind that SEC no-action letters technically do not set precedence or have any legal bearing outside of the parties to the letter, but are regularly relied upon by the SEC and practitioners for guidance.

Although Mr. Hinman’s speech does not have legal authority, I am confident that the SEC will not raise the issue or question whether Bitcoin or Ether are a security in current and future registration statements or Regulation A offerings, at least until there is different legal authority than exists today.… And, there could be different legal authority in the future. I attended a Regulation A conference in New York in the beginning of June, and one of the panels was related to cyrptocurrencies. In addition to attorneys in the space, the panel included Anita Bandy, Assistant Director of the SEC Division of Enforcement. Referring to token or coin offerings, one of the panel members specifically stated that Ether is a security and Ms. Bandy did not correct him. Furthermore, at the end of the panel, I privately asked Ms. Bandy if it is her opinion that Ether is a security today. She politely refused to answer the question, letting me know that she couldn’t express an opinion on that without conferring with other SEC management. Two days later, Mr. Hinman gave his speech.

…. But, Mr. Hinman is Director of CorpFin and Ms. Bandy is part of the Division of Enforcement. Although I believe that the SEC divisions are communicating with each other on the very relevant and important subject of cryptocurrency, and have even issued joint statements on the subject, they are separate. Moreover, decoding Mr. Hinman’s statements further, he said, “… putting aside the fundraising that accompanied the creation of Ether…” This begs the question: What would happen if the SEC Division of Enforcement took action related to the initial fundraising and creation of Ether, and how would that impact the current status of Ether? My thought is that they are mutually exclusive. Ether is decentralized today and will continue its own course.

The SEC Division of Enforcement could take action similar to the Munchee, Inc. case where it settled the proceeding with no civil penalty. The SEC could also issue another report on Ether similar to the Section 21(a) Report on the DAO issued a year ago in July 2017, though I don’t know what new or different information it could add to that analysis. If Ether violated the federal securities laws at its issuance, it did so in the same way as the DAO, using the SEC v. W. J. Howey Co. test. Perhaps a new report could provide more guidance as to the analysis of when a crypto reaches a point where it is decentralized enough such that it no longer meets the parameters laid out in Howey, or that might be wishful thinking on my part.

Director Hinman’s Speech “Digital Asset Transactions: When Howey Met Gary (Plastic)”

Director Hinman opens his speech with the gating question of whether a digital asset that is offered and sold as a security can, over time, become something other than a security. He then continues that in cases where the digital asset gives the holder a financial interest in an enterprise, it would remain a security. However, in cases where the enterprise becomes decentralized or the digital asset can only be used to purchase goods or services available through a network, the purchase and sale of the digital asset would no longer have to comply with the securities laws.

Reiterating the oft-repeated view of the SEC, Hinman notes that most initial coin or token offerings are substantially similar to debt or equity offerings in that they are just another way to raise money for a business or enterprise. In particular, funds are raised with the expectation that the network or system will be built and investors will get a return on their investment. The investment is often made for the purpose of the return and not by individuals that would ever use the eventual utility of the token. The return is often through the resale of the tokens or coins in a secondary market on cryptocurrency trading platforms.

In this case, the Howey Test is easy to apply to the initial investment. The Howey Test requires an investment of money in a common enterprise with an expectation of profit derived from the efforts of others. The emphasis is not on the thing being sold but the manner in which it is sold and the expectation of a return. Certainly, the thing being sold is not a security on its face; it is simply computer code. But the way it is sold – as part of an investment, to non-users, by promoters to develop the enterprise – can be, and in that context most often is, a security. Furthermore, in the case of ICOs, which are high-risk by nature, the disclosure requirements of the federal securities laws are fulfilling their purpose.

The securities laws apply to both the issuance or initial sale, and the resale of securities. In the case of coins or tokens, a careful analysis must be completed to determine if the resale of the coin or token also involves the sale of a security and compliance with the securities laws. If the network on which the token or coin is to function is sufficiently decentralized such that purchasers would not reasonably expect a person or group to carry out essential managerial or entrepreneurial efforts, the assets may no longer represent an investment contract. Moreover, when the efforts of the third party are no longer a key factor for determining the enterprise’s success, material information asymmetries recede. As a network becomes truly decentralized, the ability to identify an issuer or promoter to make the requisite disclosures becomes difficult, and less meaningful, such as with Ether and Bitcoin as discussed above.

An analysis as to whether an investment contract and therefore a security is being sold must be made based on facts and circumstances at any given time. Investment contracts can be made out of virtually any asset if it is packaged and promoted as such. Accordingly, although Bitcoin or Ether may not be a security on their own, if they were packaged as part of a fund or trust, they could be part of an investment contract that would need to comply with the federal securities laws.

Hinman provides some guidance in determining whether a particular sale involves the sale of an investment contract. The primary consideration is whether a third party, such as a person, entity, or coordinated group, drives the expectation of a return on investment. Questions to consider include:

Is there a person or group that has sponsored or promoted the creation and sale of the digital asset, the efforts of whom play a significant role in the development and maintenance of the asset and its potential increase in value?
Has this person or group retained a stake or other interest in the digital asset such that it would be motivated to expend efforts to cause an increase in value in the digital asset? Would purchasers reasonably believe such efforts will be undertaken and may result in a return on their investment in the digital asset?
Has the promoter raised an amount of funds in excess of what may be needed to establish a functional network, and, if so, has it indicated how those funds may be used to support the value of the tokens or to increase the value of the enterprise? Does the promoter continue to expend funds from proceeds or operations to enhance the functionality and/or value of the system within which the tokens operate?
Are purchasers “investing,” i.e., seeking a return? In that regard, is the instrument marketed and sold to the general public instead of to potential users of the network for a price that reasonably correlates with the market value of the good or service in the network?
Does application of the Securities Act protections make sense? Is there a person or entity others are relying on that plays a key role in the profit-making of the enterprise such that disclosure of their activities and plans would be important to investors? Do informational asymmetries exist between the promoters and potential purchasers/investors in the digital asset?
Do persons or entities other than the promoter exercise governance rights or meaningful influence?

Hinman then, for the first time, gives some guidance to issuers and their counsel in determining whether a particular token or coin is being structured as a security. Hinman is clear that this list of factors is not comprehensive but rather lays the groundwork for a thoughtful analysis. Items to consider include:

Is token creation commensurate with meeting the needs of users or, rather, with feeding speculation?
Are independent actors setting the price or is the promoter supporting the secondary market for the asset or otherwise influencing trading?
Is it clear that the primary motivation for purchasing the digital asset is for personal use or consumption, as compared to investment? Have purchasers made representations as to their consumptive, as opposed to their investment, intent? Are the tokens available in increments that correlate with a consumptive versus investment intent?
Are the tokens distributed in ways to meet users’ needs? For example, can the tokens be held or transferred only in amounts that correspond to a purchaser’s expected use? Are there built-in incentives that compel using the tokens promptly on the network, such as having the tokens degrade in value over time, or can the tokens be held for extended periods for investment?
Is the asset marketed and distributed to potential users or the general public?
Are the assets dispersed across a diverse user base or concentrated in the hands of a few that can exert influence over the application?
Is the application fully functioning or in early stages of development?

In another step towards regulatory guidance, Hinman said the SEC is prepared to provide more formal interpretive or no-action guidance about the proper characterization of a digital asset in a proposed use. As recently as 3 months ago, the SEC had indicated it was not processing no-action letters on the subject at that time. In his speech, Hinman recognizes the implication of determining something is a security, including related to broker-dealer licensing, exchange registration, fund registration, investment advisor registration requirements, custody and valuation issues.

Hinman also expressed excitement about the potential surrounding digital ledger technology, including advancements in supply chain management, intellectual property rights licensing, and stock ownership transfers. He thinks the craze behind ICOs has passed, and I agree. In particular, as he states, realizing that securities laws apply to an ICO that funds development, industry participants have started to revert back to traditional debt or equity offerings and only selling a token once the network has been established, and then only to those that need the functionality of the network and not as an investment.

There have been earlier signs that the SEC is softening and rethinking its approach to cryptocurrencies as well. In a speech to the Medici Conference in Los Angeles on May 2, 2018, SEC Commissioner Hester M. Peirce warned against regulators stifling the innovation of blockchain by trying to label token and coins as securities and even when they are securities, being myopic on the need to fit within existing securities laws and regulations. Like Director Hinman, Commissioner Peirce encourages communication between market participants and the SEC as everyone tries to navigate the marketplace and technology.

Further Reading on DLT/Blockchain and ICOs

For a review of the 2014 case against BTC Trading Corp. for acting as an unlicensed broker-dealer for operating a bitcoin trading platform, see HERE.

For an introduction on distributed ledger technology, including a summary of FINRA’s Report on Distributed Ledger Technology and Implication of Blockchain for the Securities Industry, see HERE.

For a summary of SEC Chief Accountant Wesley R. Bricker’s statements on ICOs and accounting implications, see HERE.

For an update on state-distributed ledger technology and blockchain regulations, see HERE.

For a summary of the SEC and NASAA statements on ICOs and updates on enforcement proceedings as of January 2018, see HERE.

For a review of the CFTC role and position on cryptocurrencies, see HERE.

To learn about SAFTs and the issues with the SAFT investment structure, see HERE.

To learn about the SEC’s position and concerns with crypto-related funds and ETFs, see HERE.

For more information on the SEC’s statements on online trading platforms for cryptocurrencies and more thoughts on the uncertainty, and need for even further guidance in this space, see HERE.

The Author

Contact Legal & Compliance LLC. Technical inquiries are always encouraged.

Follow me on Facebook, LinkedIn, YouTube, Google+, Pinterest and Twitter.

« The 2017 SEC Government-Business Forum On Small Business Capital Formation Final Report SEC Spring 2018 Regulatory Agenda »

Online Platforms Trading Cryptocurrencies; Continued Uncertainty In Crypto Space

Posted by Securities Attorney Laura Anthony | June 5, 2018 Tags: Crypto Space, Online Platforms Trading Cryptocurrencies

I have been writing often about the cryptocurrency marketplace and the SEC and other regulators’ statements and concerns about compliance with the federal securities laws. On July 25, 2017, the SEC issued a Section 21(a) Report on an investigation related to an initial coin offering (ICO) by the DAO, concluding that the ICO was a securities offering. In that Report the SEC stated that securities exchanges providing for trading must register unless an exemption applies. In its numerous statements on cryptocurrencies since then, the SEC has consistently reminded the public that exchanges that trade securities, including cryptocurrencies that are securities, must be licensed by the SEC.

The SEC has also stated that as of today, no such licensed securities cryptocurrency exchange exists. However, a few CFTC regulated exchanges have now listed bitcoin futures products and, in doing so, engaged in lengthy conversations with the CFTC, ultimately agreeing to implement risk mitigation and oversight measures, heightened margin requirements, and added information sharing agreements with the underlying bitcoin trading platforms.

The topic of the registration of exchanges for trading cryptocurrencies is not new to regulators. Years before the Section 21(a) DAO Report and crypto craze, on December 8, 2014, the SEC settled charges against BTC Virtual Stock Exchange and LTC-Global Virtual Stock Exchange, which traded securities using virtual currencies, bitcoin or litecoin. According to the SEC release on the matter, “the exchanges provided account holders the ability to use bitcoin or litecoin to buy, sell, and trade securities of businesses (primarily virtual currency-related entities) listed on the exchanges’ websites. The venues weren’t registered as broker-dealers despite soliciting the public to open accounts and trade securities. The venues weren’t registered as stock exchanges despite enlisting issuers to offer securities for the public to buy and sell.” The exchanges charged and collected transaction-based compensation for each executed trade on the platforms.

Since the Section 21(a) DAO Report, most of the statements from the SEC and other regulators have focused on ICOs and the issuance of cryptocurrencies as opposed to focusing on the exchanges that trade cryptos. On March 7, 2018, the SEC finally issued a public statement directed specifically to online platforms for the trading of digital assets – i.e., cryptocurrencies. This blog will summarize that statement. Also, at the end of this blog is a list with links to my numerous other blogs on the topic of distributed ledger technology (blockchain), cryptocurrencies and ICOs.

SEC Statement on Potentially Unlawful Online Platforms for Trading Digital Assets

Online trading platforms have become prevalent for the buying and selling of coins and tokens, including new cryptocurrencies offered in initial coin offerings (ICOs). Many platforms bring buyers and sellers together in one place and offer investors access to automated systems that display priced orders, execute trades, and provide transaction data. If a platform offers trading of digital assets that are securities and operates as an “exchange,” as defined by the federal securities laws, then the platform must register with the SEC as a national securities exchange or be exempt from registration. As mentioned above, no such SEC-registered platform exists as of today.

In its statement, the SEC cautions investors that “[T]o get the protections offered by the federal securities laws and SEC oversight when trading digital assets that are securities, investors should use a platform or entity registered with the SEC, such as a national securities exchange, alternative trading system (‘ATS’), or broker-dealer.”

The SEC is concerned that online platforms have the appearance of regular licensed securities exchanges, including using the word “exchange” when they are not. The SEC does not review the standards these “exchanges” use to pick or vet digital assets and cryptocurrencies, the trading protocols used to determine how orders interact and are executed, nor any internal controls or procedures of these platforms. Furthermore, the SEC warns that data provided by these trading platforms, such as bid and ask prices and execution information, may lack integrity.

The SEC provides a list of questions for investors to ask when considering trading on an online platform, including:

Do you trade securities on this platform? If so, is the platform registered as a national securities exchange (see our link to the list below)?
Does the platform operate as an ATS? If so, is the ATS registered as a broker-dealer and has it filed a Form ATS with the SEC (see our link to the list below)?
Is there information in FINRA’s BrokerCheck ® about any individuals or firms operating the platform?
How does the platform select digital assets for trading?
Who can trade on the platform?
What are the trading protocols?
How are prices set on the platform?
Are platform users treated equally?
What are the platform’s fees?
How does the platform safeguard users’ trading and personally identifying information?
What are the platform’s protections against cybersecurity threats, such as hacking or intrusions?
What other services does the platform provide? Is the platform registered with the SEC for these services?
Does the platform hold users’ assets? If so, how are these assets safeguarded?

Registration or Exemption of an Exchange

Section 5 of the Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (“Exchange Act”) makes it unlawful for any broker, dealer, or exchange, directly or indirectly, to effect any transaction in a security, or to report any such transaction, in interstate commerce, unless the exchange is registered as a national securities exchange or is exempted from such registration. A national securities exchange registers with the SEC under Section 6 of the Exchange Act.

Section 3(a)(1) of the Exchange Act defines an “exchange” as “any organization, association, or group of persons, whether incorporated or unincorporated, which constitutes, maintains, or provides a market place or facilities for bringing together purchasers and sellers of securities or for otherwise performing with respect to securities the functions commonly performed by a stock exchange as that term is generally understood….” Exchange Act Rule 3b-16 further defines an exchange to mean “an organization, association, or group of persons that: (1) brings together the orders for securities of multiple buyers and sellers; and (2) uses established, non-discretionary methods (whether by providing a trading facility or by setting rules) under which such orders interact with each other, and the buyers and sellers entering such orders agree to the terms of the trade.” The SEC has also stated that “an exchange or contract market would be required to register under Section 5 of the Exchange Act if it provides direct electronic access to persons located in the U.S.”

According to the SEC website, as of today there are 21 licensed exchanges registered with the SEC. Exchanges that trade securities futures are registered with the SEC through a notice filing under Section 6(g) of the Exchange Act. There are 5 such registered exchanges. There are two exchanges that the SEC has exempted from registration on the basis of limited volume transactions.

Continued Uncertainty

Although the SEC is certainly correct that an online trading platform that trades securities must be licensed by the SEC, that would not be the case if the asset being traded is not a security. In fact, if the asset is a currency (and not a security) or a “thing” such as loyalty points, no US federal agency would regulate its trading. The SEC only regulates the trading of securities and security-related products. The CFTC has regulatory oversight over futures, options, and derivatives contracts on virtual currencies and has oversight to pursue claims of fraud or manipulation involving a virtual currency traded in interstate commerce. Beyond instances of fraud or manipulation, the CFTC generally does not oversee “spot” or cash market exchanges and transactions involving virtual currencies that do not utilize margin, leverage or financing. Rather, these “exchanges” are regulated as payment processors or money transmitters under state law.

Likewise, no federal regulator has direct jurisdiction over “exchanges” that trade loyalty points such as converting airline points to use for hotels, cars, consumer goods and services, or cash. Online platforms such as www.points.com and www.webflyer.com operate using contractual partnerships with entities that issue loyalty points. In fact, points.com is owned by Points International Ltd., which trades on the TSX and Nasdaq and refers to itself as “the global leader in loyalty currency management.” Certainly, today there is a vast difference in the trading of loyalty points versus those looking to make profits in cryptocurrency trading, but there are also analogies, especially with the “currency” side. In a recent 6-K, Points has this to say about the loyalty industry:

Year-over-year, loyalty programs continue to generate a significant source of ancillary revenue and cash flows for companies that have developed and maintain these loyalty programs. According to the Colloquy group, a leading consulting and research firm focused on the loyalty industry, the number of loyalty program memberships in the US increased from 3.3 billion in 2014 to 3.8 billion in 2016, representing an increase of 15% (source: 2017 Colloquy Loyalty Census Report, June 2017). As the number of loyalty memberships continues to increase, the level of diversification in the loyalty landscape is evolving. While the airline, hotel, specialty retail, and financial services industries continue to be dominant in loyalty programs in the US, smaller verticals, including the restaurant and drug store industries are beginning to see larger growth in their membership base. Further, newer loyalty concepts, such as large e-commerce programs, daily deals, and online travel agencies, are becoming more prevalent. As a result of this changing landscape, loyalty programs must continue to provide innovative value propositions in order to drive activity in their programs.

Companies that believe that their crypto is truly a utility with currency value may feel they have more in common with a loyalty point than a security, and regulators have yet to be able to give any level of firm ground on which to stand.

In a hearing before the House Financial Services Committee on May 16, 2018, Stephanie Avakian, co-director of the SEC Division of Enforcement, told lawmakers that the SEC will continue to look at each case involving a cryptocurrency on a facts-and-circumstances basis. Ms. Avakian and co-director Steven Peiken both gave testimony and sat in the hot seat. The Financial Services Committee members were pushing for more definitive input on how ICOs should be defined and regulated, without result. The hearing became contentious, with Committee members becoming frustrated with the lack of direction and lack of certainty from the SEC as to how they define and view cryptocurrencies, other than “on a case-by-case basis” and using the same federal securities principles that already exist – a mantra that has been repeated.

However, the SEC enforcement division could rightfully feel they are being put in an unfair position with this line of questioning. Commissioner Hester M. Peirce warned against rulemaking by enforcement in a recent speech. Ms. Peirce has strong opinions on the subject. She states, “[D]ue process starts with telling individuals in advance what actions constitute violations of the law.” She continues with “[A] related issue to which I am paying attention is the degree to which our enforcement process is being used to push the bounds of our authority. Congress sets the parameters within which we may operate, and we ought not to stray outside those boundaries through, for example, overly broad interpretations of ‘security’ or extraterritorial impositions of the law. Our canons of ethics specifically caution us against exceeding ‘the proper limits of the law’ and argue for us remaining ‘consistent with the statutory purposes expressed by the Congress.’”

In fairness, Ms. Peirce was talking in the context of enforcement as a whole. Not once did she mention cryptocurrencies, ICOs or blockchain in that speech. However, in light of the prevalence of the topic and many industry leaders, politicians and market participants looking to the SEC for guidance on the question of “what is a cryptocurrency” and “how should it be regulated,” I can’t help but think the SEC is looking back at Congress with the same question.