SEC subpoenas three crypto VCs in sign crackdown is gaining pace

[zasad@]

@zasad@. I reckon you misunderstood the case. Uncle Gary wants to declare them securities as issued by Ripple, however, they are not. The tokens by themselves do not have a contract or a promise of profit to the buyers. But securities laws were broken when Ripple offered them in private to investors. If XRP was sold in exchanges, this does not make it an illegal security which also acquits Coinbase from uncle Gary's case against them of being an exchange if illegal securities because XRP is not an illegal security.

That's where our opinions differ. You take this case literally, and I look at this court decision from different angles, because this decision also affects the big exchanges, which have their own beneficiaries, like Blackrock.
Speaking of sales, token advertising and “general solicitation” were strictly prohibited before, which violated US laws.
Before the regulation, many projects such as Solana, Near, Flow were essentially violating US law and the regulation process has only just begun.

However, the tokens by themselves are not illegal securities. The argument is securities laws were only broken if these tokens were sold through private deals, but if they were sold through the secondary market, this does not break securities laws. Uncle Gary is declaring that the tokens are illegal securities, the judge ruled that this is a mistake and these tokens are not illegal securities. This is also not according to your or my opinion. This is the judge's ruling.

Are tokens that are bought on the exchange and are in staking a security or not?

Why do projects take investments from cryptocurrency funds, then create a company that issues utility tokens, which are then distributed among investors, the team and the community?

Why would such a quest be necessary if the project can issue tokens and sell them on an exchange?

https://www.dlnews.com/articles/regulation/sec-subpoenas-three-crypto-vcs-as-crypto-crackdown-grows/
The SEC issued similar subpoenas to at least two other crypto VCs.
"“It's a natural additional enforcement area,” said a securities attorney.
The US Securities and Exchange Commission has subpoenaed at least three crypto venture capital firms this year, according to a source familiar with the SEC’s investigation.

One subpoena was titled “in the matter of certain crypto asset offering intermediaries,” per the first page viewed by DL News.

“The staff of the United States Securities and Exchange Commission is conducting an investigation relating to the above-referenced matter to determine if violations of the federal securities laws may have occurred,” the page read."

___
SEC won't stop. Anything sold to non-accredited investors through the right to hold tokens in the future is considered a security by the SEC. But the SEC won't mess around with small projects while there are big ones.

Ashley is misleading. Let's go to wtm. The biggest profit right now is kaspa. We take the top ASIC KAS Miner KS5. We are lowering the price for electricity. We receive an income of around $40/day. x10 ~ $400/day x 21 days = 8400. Either the guys are from the future or Ashley is misleading.

SEC has no claims to projects where coins are given away for free or for active participation and projects where coins are mined by mining.
No sales - no claims.

[Semen222]

@zasad@. I reckon you misunderstood the case. Uncle Gary wants to declare them securities as issued by Ripple, however, they are not. The tokens by themselves do not have a contract or a promise of profit to the buyers. But securities laws were broken when Ripple offered them in private to investors. If XRP was sold in exchanges, this does not make it an illegal security which also acquits Coinbase from uncle Gary's case against them of being an exchange if illegal securities because XRP is not an illegal security.

That's where our opinions differ. You take this case literally, and I look at this court decision from different angles, because this decision also affects the big exchanges, which have their own beneficiaries, like Blackrock.
Speaking of sales, token advertising and “general solicitation” were strictly prohibited before, which violated US laws.
Before the regulation, many projects such as Solana, Near, Flow were essentially violating US law and the regulation process has only just begun.

However, the tokens by themselves are not illegal securities. The argument is securities laws were only broken if these tokens were sold through private deals, but if they were sold through the secondary market, this does not break securities laws. Uncle Gary is declaring that the tokens are illegal securities, the judge ruled that this is a mistake and these tokens are not illegal securities. This is also not according to your or my opinion. This is the judge's ruling.

Are tokens that are bought on the exchange and are in staking a security or not?

Why do projects take investments from cryptocurrency funds, then create a company that issues utility tokens, which are then distributed among investors, the team and the community?

Why would such a quest be necessary if the project can issue tokens and sell them on an exchange?

https://www.dlnews.com/articles/regulation/sec-subpoenas-three-crypto-vcs-as-crypto-crackdown-grows/
The SEC issued similar subpoenas to at least two other crypto VCs.
"“It's a natural additional enforcement area,” said a securities attorney.
The US Securities and Exchange Commission has subpoenaed at least three crypto venture capital firms this year, according to a source familiar with the SEC’s investigation.

One subpoena was titled “in the matter of certain crypto asset offering intermediaries,” per the first page viewed by DL News.

“The staff of the United States Securities and Exchange Commission is conducting an investigation relating to the above-referenced matter to determine if violations of the federal securities laws may have occurred,” the page read."

___
SEC won't stop. Anything sold to non-accredited investors through the right to hold tokens in the future is considered a security by the SEC. But the SEC won't mess around with small projects while there are big ones.

Ashley is misleading. Let's go to wtm. The biggest profit right now is kaspa. We take the top ASIC KAS Miner KS5. We are lowering the price for electricity. We receive an income of around $40/day. x10 ~ $400/day x 21 days = 8400. Either the guys are from the future or Ashley is misleading.

SEC has no claims to projects where coins are given away for free or for active participation and projects where coins are mined by mining.
No sales - no claims.

I apologize, I missed the answer (I mixed up the topics). There was an article about how the guys mined $100k and left the owner with $1,500 worth of electricity debts.

[zasad@]

https://www.axios.com/2024/08/12/sec-questions-vcs-uniswap
"Several venture capital funds, including Andreessen Horowitz and Union Square Ventures, have received letters from the SEC over their involvement with decentralized crypto exchange operator Uniswap Labs, per multiple sources.

The big picture: Uniswap Labs has raised over $170 million in VC funding, most recently in late 2022 at nearly a $1.7 billion valuation.

Catch up quick: The company received, and responded to, a Wells Notice earlier this year.

In short, it appears that regulators may accuse Uniswap of being an unregistered exchange."

___
Even though it's late news but I like the way SEC chooses its targets. These companies have a lot of money and some of that money can be put into the state coffers

[Fiatless]

https://www.axios.com/2024/08/12/sec-questions-vcs-uniswap
"Several venture capital funds, including Andreessen Horowitz and Union Square Ventures, have received letters from the SEC over their involvement with decentralized crypto exchange operator Uniswap Labs, per multiple sources.

The big picture: Uniswap Labs has raised over $170 million in VC funding, most recently in late 2022 at nearly a $1.7 billion valuation.

Catch up quick: The company received, and responded to, a Wells Notice earlier this year.

In short, it appears that regulators may accuse Uniswap of being an unregistered exchange."

___
Even though it's late news but I like the way SEC chooses its targets. These companies have a lot of money and some of that money can be put into the state coffers

Earlier this year Uniswap Labs’ Chief Legal Officer Marvin Ammori adviced the SEC to drop it's investigation or litigation against the firm. He argues that the company's protocol does not meet the definition of an exchange and is thus not subject to regulation by the SEC. He further stated that for the SEC to bring Uniswap under its regulatory jurisdiction, it has to redefine or expand its definition of an exchange.

Ammori also claimed that the accusation that Uniswap interface and wallets are brokers will not succeed because there is a ruling from a US federal court that dismissed the SEC's claims that Coinbase Wallet constituted an unregistered securities broker.

Maybe the SEC has low odds of winning this case.

[Semen222]

https://www.axios.com/2024/08/12/sec-questions-vcs-uniswap
"Several venture capital funds, including Andreessen Horowitz and Union Square Ventures, have received letters from the SEC over their involvement with decentralized crypto exchange operator Uniswap Labs, per multiple sources.

The big picture: Uniswap Labs has raised over $170 million in VC funding, most recently in late 2022 at nearly a $1.7 billion valuation.

Catch up quick: The company received, and responded to, a Wells Notice earlier this year.

In short, it appears that regulators may accuse Uniswap of being an unregistered exchange."

___
Even though it's late news but I like the way SEC chooses its targets. These companies have a lot of money and some of that money can be put into the state coffers

Earlier this year Uniswap Labs’ Chief Legal Officer Marvin Ammori adviced the SEC to drop it's investigation or litigation against the firm. He argues that the company's protocol does not meet the definition of an exchange and is thus not subject to regulation by the SEC. He further stated that for the SEC to bring Uniswap under its regulatory jurisdiction, it has to redefine or expand its definition of an exchange.

Ammori also claimed that the accusation that Uniswap interface and wallets are brokers will not succeed because there is a ruling from a US federal court that dismissed the SEC's claims that Coinbase Wallet constituted an unregistered securities broker.

Maybe the SEC has low odds of winning this case.

I think the SEC is just trying to grab any marketable player under any pretext. After all, someone needs to show the results of their work done)

[zasad@]

@zasad@. I reckon you misunderstood the case. Uncle Gary wants to declare them securities as issued by Ripple, however, they are not. The tokens by themselves do not have a contract or a promise of profit to the buyers. But securities laws were broken when Ripple offered them in private to investors. If XRP was sold in exchanges, this does not make it an illegal security which also acquits Coinbase from uncle Gary's case against them of being an exchange if illegal securities because XRP is not an illegal security.

That's where our opinions differ. You take this case literally, and I look at this court decision from different angles, because this decision also affects the big exchanges, which have their own beneficiaries, like Blackrock.
Speaking of sales, token advertising and “general solicitation” were strictly prohibited before, which violated US laws.
Before the regulation, many projects such as Solana, Near, Flow were essentially violating US law and the regulation process has only just begun.

However, the tokens by themselves are not illegal securities. The argument is securities laws were only broken if these tokens were sold through private deals, but if they were sold through the secondary market, this does not break securities laws. Uncle Gary is declaring that the tokens are illegal securities, the judge ruled that this is a mistake and these tokens are not illegal securities. This is also not according to your or my opinion. This is the judge's ruling.

Kraken Must Face SEC Suit Over Crypto Exchange Registration
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/kraken-must-face-sec-lawsuit-180222252.html?

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/court-denies-kraken-s-motion-to-dismiss-sec-lawsuit/ar-AA1pkJ7j
According to an Aug. 23 court filing, a U.S. federal court denied a motion by cryptocurrency exchange Kraken to dismiss a lawsuit by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) alleging that Kraken operates an unregistered securities exchange .

In November, the SEC charged Kraken with “operating the Kraken cryptocurrency trading platform as an unregistered securities exchange, broker, dealer, and clearing agency.”
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.421113/gov.uscourts.cand.421113.90.0.pdf

From the November 2023 SEC action: #ADA, #AXS, #ALGO, #ATOM, #CHZ, #COTI, #DASH, #FIL, #FLOW, #ICP, #MANA, #MATIC, #NEAR, #OMG, #SAND and #SOL are securities

____
This judge's ruling contradicts your arguments.