[2018-03-16] Coindesk SEC Official Says 'Dozens' of Crypto Investigations ......

[99btcwah]

A top official at the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has confirmed the existence of numerous investigations into initial coin offering (ICO) campaigns.

On Thursday, Stephanie Avakian, co-director of the SEC's Enforcement Division, said the agency had "dozens" of investigations that relate to cryptocurrency and ICOs, according to Bloomberg BNA, during an appearance at this week's Investment Adviser Association conference in Washington, D.C. During her remarks, Avakian said that the agency is "seeing a lot in the crypto space."

"We are very active, and I would just expect to see more and more," she told the conference.

Reports that the SEC had issued subpoenas to startups running ICOs emerged earlier this month, though the legal requests appear to have begun last year, as previously reported.

The agency is looking for every detail surrounding token sales, one industry lawyer told CoinDesk.

SEC officials have said previously that they are looking into the space for illegal activity, with a particular focus on token sales. Reports indicate that the agency might also be looking into sales that involve Simple Agreements for Future Tokens (SAFTs), which effectively act as a promise to eventually distribute tokens in exchange for immediate funds.

https://www.coindesk.com/sec-official-says-agency-is-investigating-icos/

[kevoh]

This was bound to happen anyway! Too bad the heat on the ICOs by the US U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) which should target scam and ponzi ICOs, on a good day, also affects the genuine ICOs and causing a general lack of confidence in ICOs from prospective investors.

[JoshuaBlack1]

I went to a conference where a fintec lawyer was speaking and he thinks even projects that propose valid utility tokens, the fact they still have no actual working product changes the risks profile in investing for a consumer. Pushing it into the realms of a security

[Kprawn]

The SEC cannot sit on their hands and allow consumers to be scammed by these ICOs. I think the first round of their response

to these scam ICOs will be very harsh. They will want to send a strong message to these scammers to reduce these scams in

the future. The SEC will only react, when there was a lot of complains from the public. The punishment for security fraud is

not a joke, so prepare yourself for a lot of heat, when they come down on you. 

[RamonBTC]

The investigations as a whole is a good move from Security and Exchange Commission in eradicating and also as a deterrent for future ICO(initial coin offering) scamming. A little late in my opinion, but it’s better late than never as other philosopher say.

I think prevention is a much better approach in giving licenses or certificates to this ICO and will not take any losses to the investors, if in the beginning they can’t operate.

[jseverson]

It doesn't look like there's any real heat on Bitcoin so that's fine. It's looking like they're still too busy with ICOs to start putting their attention into unregistered exchanges, which they've warned people of a few days ago. So far so good, I guess.

This was bound to happen anyway! Too bad the heat on the ICOs by the US U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) which should target scam and ponzi ICOs, on a good day, also affects the genuine ICOs and causing a general lack of confidence in ICOs from prospective investors.

Well if they're truly legit, they probably won't mind the regulations. It's a pain for sure, but ICOs have been abused for so long that they're just begging for a crackdown. It's not like they're being shut down indiscriminately either, so non-scammy ones should have little to fear.

[aso118]

Most ICOs which do not have the wherewithal to comply with US laws state that their ICOs are not open to US residents. The big ones of course spend a lot on compliance and open their ICOs to accredited US investors. But ICOs which do not do a full KYC have no way of knowing whether their tokens have been purchased by US citizens. Their biggest defence would be plausible deniability - customers would have to click a button saying they are not US citizens before subscribing to the ICO.