ICOs at the End of 2017: What We Think We Know and What We Don't Know

[jules-jules]

Link: https://www.wsgr.com/WSGR/Display.aspx?SectionName=publications/PDFSearch/wsgralert-initial-coin-offerings-1017.htm

Alert by U.S.-based legal services provider WSRG. Some highlights:

 > Some tokens are and always will be securities. Tokens that offer holders dividends, interest, or profit or revenue participations, for example, generally are securities.

 > Tokens that are solely utility tokens should not be securities.

 > Simple Agreements for Future Tokens (SAFTs), as used today, almost always are securities.

[1715649379]

1715649379

[1715649379]

1715649379

[1715649379]

1715649379

[1715649379]

1715649379

[1715649379]

1715649379

[jules-jules]

Found this in the corresponding hackernews thread and thought it encapsulates the current situation in the U.S. quite well:

>A quick chat with an attorney who is an SEC specialist basically said "if it breathes" i.e. involves money that ICO is seen as a security. The SEC putting together the digital division which covers cryptocurrency tokens is part of what led to him saying this. Basically fish in a barrel. It is in my opinion that any US-based ICO is now in a lottery as to whether they get the SEC visit.