Author

Topic: [2018-03-06] FinCEN raises major licensing problem for ICOs, letter to Congress (Read 177 times)

legendary
Activity: 2282
Merit: 1050
Monero Core Team
There is nothing new here.

The guidance was issued back in March of 2013, close to 5 years ago, and for the most part has been ignored by the industry. https://www.fincen.gov/sites/default/files/shared/FIN-2013-G001.pdf It is not just ICOs but also pre mines, founders rewards etc. It was followed through with enforcement action against Ripple in 2015 https://www.fincen.gov/news/news-releases/fincen-fines-ripple-labs-inc-first-civil-enforcement-action-against-virtual.

Indeed, it's very obvious that ICO administrators fit the definition of "administrator" in FinCEN's 2013 guidance. They are in the business of issuing virtual currency and have the authority to redeem it. This is clear because ICOs and the associated tokens are completely centralized. Ripple is similarly centralized. It had a closed-source centralized repository. It was open-sourced well after the network was live. Even thereafter, all Ripple clients were set to trust Ripple Labs' validation nodes by default -- fully centralized. FinCEN addressed this specifically in 2013:

A handful of coins are not impacted, Bitcoin, Litecoin, and Monero come to mind. These are coins where all the new money supply is generated by persons own "computing or manufacturing effort" and have no "central depository and no single administrator".

FinCEN made a clear distinction between those who create virtual currency and use it to purchase goods and services (users) vs. those who create virtual currency and sells those units for real currency (money transmitters).

Pre-mining or insta-mining does not require a central repository or single administrator, and early miners are still obtaining coins by computing/manufacturing effort.

Similarly, a founders' reward is literally part of the decentralized protocol. No central repository or single administrator required, and (in Zcash, for example) miners still obtain most of the block rewards through computing effort.

For a pre-mine or a founder's reward the holder of the keys for the pre mine or founders reward becomes an "administrator" or an "exchanger" under the guidance. In the enforcement action action against Ripple (Statement of Facts) Ripple Labs is considered and "exchanger" and Ripple is described as "pre mined" https://www.fincen.gov/sites/default/files/shared/Ripple_Facts.pdf
legendary
Activity: 3122
Merit: 1492
There is nothing new here.

The guidance was issued back in March of 2013, close to 5 years ago, and for the most part has been ignored by the industry. https://www.fincen.gov/sites/default/files/shared/FIN-2013-G001.pdf It is not just ICOs but also pre mines, founders rewards etc. It was followed through with enforcement action against Ripple in 2015 https://www.fincen.gov/news/news-releases/fincen-fines-ripple-labs-inc-first-civil-enforcement-action-against-virtual.

A handful of coins are not impacted, Bitcoin, Litecoin, and Monero come to mind. These are coins where all the new money supply is generated by persons own "computing or manufacturing effort" and have no "central depository and no single administrator".

Yes but they are cementing their stance against ICOs and other forms of crowdsales. There are some news articles speculating that the SEC is also going after the SAFTs.

https://coinlist.co/help/what-is-the-saft
https://www.coindesk.com/sec-going-saft/

That also might make funding projects like Filecoin via Coinlist illegal even though their investors are all accredited.

Should Fincen's latest letter be taken as a final warning before the SEC finally moves to charge some of the biggest ICOs in the cryptospace?

I reckon, yes.
legendary
Activity: 1666
Merit: 1196
STOP SNITCHIN'
There is nothing new here.

The guidance was issued back in March of 2013, close to 5 years ago, and for the most part has been ignored by the industry. https://www.fincen.gov/sites/default/files/shared/FIN-2013-G001.pdf It is not just ICOs but also pre mines, founders rewards etc. It was followed through with enforcement action against Ripple in 2015 https://www.fincen.gov/news/news-releases/fincen-fines-ripple-labs-inc-first-civil-enforcement-action-against-virtual.

Indeed, it's very obvious that ICO administrators fit the definition of "administrator" in FinCEN's 2013 guidance. They are in the business of issuing virtual currency and have the authority to redeem it. This is clear because ICOs and the associated tokens are completely centralized. Ripple is similarly centralized. It had a closed-source centralized repository. It was open-sourced well after the network was live. Even thereafter, all Ripple clients were set to trust Ripple Labs' validation nodes by default -- fully centralized. FinCEN addressed this specifically in 2013:

A handful of coins are not impacted, Bitcoin, Litecoin, and Monero come to mind. These are coins where all the new money supply is generated by persons own "computing or manufacturing effort" and have no "central depository and no single administrator".

FinCEN made a clear distinction between those who create virtual currency and use it to purchase goods and services (users) vs. those who create virtual currency and sells those units for real currency (money transmitters).

Pre-mining or insta-mining does not require a central repository or single administrator, and early miners are still obtaining coins by computing/manufacturing effort.

Similarly, a founders' reward is literally part of the decentralized protocol. No central repository or single administrator required, and (in Zcash, for example) miners still obtain most of the block rewards through computing effort.
legendary
Activity: 2282
Merit: 1050
Monero Core Team
There is nothing new here.

The guidance was issued back in March of 2013, close to 5 years ago, and for the most part has been ignored by the industry. https://www.fincen.gov/sites/default/files/shared/FIN-2013-G001.pdf It is not just ICOs but also pre mines, founders rewards etc. It was followed through with enforcement action against Ripple in 2015 https://www.fincen.gov/news/news-releases/fincen-fines-ripple-labs-inc-first-civil-enforcement-action-against-virtual.

A handful of coins are not impacted, Bitcoin, Litecoin, and Monero come to mind. These are coins where all the new money supply is generated by persons own "computing or manufacturing effort" and have no "central depository and no single administrator".
copper member
Activity: 98
Merit: 12
BTRIC: Innovate. Institute. Labs.

Full Title: FinCEN raises major licensing problem for ICOs in new letter to Congress.
https://coincenter.org/link/fincen-raises-major-licensing-problem-for-icos-in-new-letter-to-congress

Excerpt:
Quote from: Coin Center
Today FinCEN released a letter to Senator Ron Wyden clearly indicating that they interpret the relevant laws and regulations such that token sellers are money transmitters:

Quote from: FinCEN
A developer that sells convertible virtual currency, including in the form of ICO coins or tokens, in exchange for another type of value that substitutes for currency is a money transmitter and must comply.

Make no mistake, this is a highly consequential interpretation. Accordingly, any group or individual developer who both (A) sold newly created tokens to buyers (i.e. had an ICO) involving U.S. residents and (B) failed to register with FinCEN as a money transmitter,and perform the associated compliance KYC/AML obligations, can be charged under a federal felony criminal statute, 18 U.S.C § 1960, with unlicensed money transmission. If found guilty one could face up to five years in prison. Criminal liability may also extend to employees of, and investors in, the business that sold the tokens.
Jump to: