In this case, we have a good example:
1. The head of SEC said in his statement that there is no utility, as utility does not provide profit, can not be traded on the exchange and provides utilitarian functions. For example, access to the platform;
2. To classify the token we contacted Estonian lawyers and received a legal opinion, in which our token was classified as a security token;
3. If we had followed the "simple" way, the American market would have been closed for us and the consequences for the company would have been unpredictable.
In this case, I have a few questions. I'll start from the end.
What prevents the entry of your company into the American market in case of introduction of this kind of a token?
SEC does not approve of utility tokens so if you choose to be one, SEC forbids you from entering the American market. Since we are a security token, there is nothing stopping us from entering the American market as long as we get all the necessary documents ready, and we are getting closer and closer to receive the license from SEC!
Got it, let's move on to the next question. What is the determining factor in the classification of the token? Are there any properties or features of the code itself?
Since we are building an ERC20 token and it will be on the Ethereum platform, the code itself is universal with all the other ERC20 tokens.
Clear. That is, based on the first point, the introduction of utility tokens for platform management is in your opinion a bad idea?
Utility tokens are becoming more and more vulnerable as crypto is becoming more and more centralized and utility tokens carry a great deal of danger for what's too come. As a security token, we acquire all the necessary legal documents to not have to worry about such issues. We believe that eventually, all projects will have to adopt security tokens and so we are a step ahead of many projects, especially our competition!