Author

Topic: [2017-12-11]Statement on Cryptocurrencies and Initial Coin Offerings (sec.gov) (Read 2116 times)

sr. member
Activity: 454
Merit: 251

This statement goes much further than past statements/opinions. I have a feeling that the hammer is going to come down in the next couple months, and it won't be pretty. ICOs promoting securities to Americans and exchanges brokering sales of securities seem to be on the SEC's hit list. I found these statements particularly worrying:

Quote
Similarly, I also caution those who operate systems and platforms that effect or facilitate transactions in these products that they may be operating unregistered exchanges or broker-dealers that are in violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.


This definitely applies to Bitfinex (who only booted US customers last month), Poloniex and Bittrex. And they go even further to suggest that even cryptocurrencies (and not just ICO tokens) may be securities as well:

Quote
Before launching a cryptocurrency or a product with its value tied to one or more cryptocurrencies, its promoters must either (1) be able to demonstrate that the currency or product is not a security or (2) comply with applicable registration and other requirements under our securities laws.  Second, brokers, dealers and other market participants that allow for payments in cryptocurrencies, allow customers to purchase cryptocurrencies on margin, or otherwise use cryptocurrencies to facilitate securities transactions should exercise particular caution, including ensuring that their cryptocurrency activities are not undermining their anti-money laundering and know-your-customer obligations.[7]  As I have stated previously, these market participants should treat payments and other transactions made in cryptocurrency as if cash were being handed from one party to the other.

That statement is particularly chilling with regard to brokers like 1Broker/1Fox and SimpleFX, exchanges like those above and Shapeshift/Changelly, and maybe even payment processors like Bitpay. It's going to be an interesting several months as regulators start nosing around. Undecided
legendary
Activity: 1918
Merit: 1012
★Nitrogensports.eu★
It is good that regulators are trying to provide clarity to investor. Surprising that till date, no ICO has been registered with the SEC. They are doing the best they can, given that no national borders exist in the crypto world.
They have cracked down on a couple of ICOs and people who are thinking of raising money through an ICO and disappearing will think twice now.
legendary
Activity: 3122
Merit: 1492
@CryptoBry. They really have no choice. They either need to adapt and make new laws to regulate the ICOs in the cryptospace, or stop it entirely which they know they cannot do. So I reckon they might choose the easier course hehehe.



sr. member
Activity: 616
Merit: 252
It is good that they summarized the things that the investors should look into before investing their money because we cannot see who are we dealing with so it is a matter of trust. We should always do research and due diligence because there have been so many scam artists taking this opportunity so each one of us should help each other in knowing if the people behind the projects are legit or not. We know that there are fortunes to be made in investing in this projects but there is a possibility of losing it too and we can reduce the risk of losing by doing our part of dissecting the project first before putting our money into it.
sr. member
Activity: 1008
Merit: 355
Quote
I believe that initial coin offerings – whether they represent offerings of securities or not – can be effective ways for entrepreneurs and others to raise funding, including for innovative projects.

I love reading that statement. It is actually fair and concise. Well, one of the reasons why SEC is strict in implementing laws on securities is the fact that if the ICO platform is left on its own there would be many scam artists that will get in and victimized innocent investors -- it has already happened actually. We have to also consider this very important job of this department. Now, if i may add, the problem here is that there is no clear regulatory framework yet from the SEC for those who wanted to legalize their ICO project. It would have been better if there would be an office specializing on scrutinizing and approving ICO projects (and have the cost imposed to the applicants). This is the best way to protect buyers of ICOs from being victimized.
Jump to: