Re: Potential list of securities in the US [was: Unlawful Unregistered Securities, DID and VC]

út 20. 6. 2023 v 16:32 odesílatel Phillip Shoemaker <phillip@identity.org>
napsal:

> Overall, I believe the the United States is going to be on the wrong side
> of history here. Many countries are embracing crypto innovations, and are
> therefore writing new laws to encourage and help guide this industry. The
> United States is using old methods of thinking to regulate cryptocurrency
> (read: innovation) out of this country.
>
> Chaals asks the question “Do you agree that our groups should adhere to US
> securities law”, and while I agree we should adhere to laws in general
> (worldwide, rather than selecting which country’s laws we should adhere to
> and which ones we should ignore), I need to point out that the concept of a
> security is not black and white.
>
> Earlier in this thread, it was mentioned that securities are items that
> are promoted/marketed as having lasting value with an expectation of
> profit. I should point out that if the above were the only required checks,
> then none of the listed tokens would be on the list. Solana, for example,
> has never marketed SOL as an investment, and they in fact have told people
> not to expect profit: it is a token to power their chain. Many of these
> tokens were created as utility tokens, meant to feed the meter, or to power
> the video game. These are simple arcade tokens. It isn’t the company’s
> fault, that speculators come along and hype the token. The bottom line is
> that the SEC needs to provide a way to determine what is a security and
> what is not, and make it less subjective than it is now. I personally
> believe that if the SEC continues this attack, all tokens will ultimately
> be listed, including BTC and ETH.
>

Regarding Solana, I'd like to direct your attention to points 127-140 in
the link below:

https://www.sec.gov/litigation/complaints/2023/comp-pr2023-102.pdf


>
> What we are seeing is an attack on crypto from the US government, and when
> the administration changes, or the SEC chair loses his job, we will see the
> government move back to a more moderate position. Is this the game the W3C
> wants to play, to constantly waver in their approach because of
> inconsistent guidance from the US government?
>
> Until there is clear and consistent guidance from the United States
> Government, I think this thread is much ado about nothing. I personally
> believe that the W3C should approach legalities here cautiously, as we
> serve a global community, not a US community.
>
> - - -
> Phillip Shoemaker
> Executive Director, Identity
> E: phillip@identity.org
> M: 1.408.835.8444
>
>
>
> On Jun 20, 2023, at 1:05 AM, Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> ne 18. 6. 2023 v 23:33 odesílatel Chaals Nevile <
> charles.nevile@consensys.net> napsal:
>
>>
>>
>> On Saturday, June 17, 2023 12:13:25 (+02:00), Melvin Carvalho wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> čt 15. 6. 2023 v 17:06 odesílatel Kyle Den Hartog <kyle@pryvit.tech>
>> napsal:
>>
>>> ...Won’t this just lead to a select few number of did methods being
>>> allowed based upon a non-unanimous definition of legality? Within the US
>>> this is still being interpreted by the judicial system about whether these
>>> even are securities.  Globally, there’s a patchwork of legal
>>> interpretations. I’ve pointed to China’s laws as one example...
>>>
>>
>> While it's true that regulations vary widely across different
>> jurisdictions, this discussion is fundamentally about aligning our work
>> with legal frameworks, particularly those which carry significant penalties
>> for non-compliance, such as US securities law.
>>
>>
>> While as far as I can tell the US is pretty happy about killing people as
>> a legal sanction, I believe they only have it for certain classes of crime
>> that do not include financial crimes. Whereas China does seem to apply the
>> death penalty in such cases. I don't know about you, but that strikes me as
>> a significant penalty and indeed significantly more so than a fine and
>> lengthy term in prison.
>>
>
> Chaals, I'd appreciate a clear response to this straightforward question:
>
> Do you agree that our groups should adhere to US securities laws?
>
> If yes, we can move forward. However, if your answer is otherwise, kindly
> state it explicitly as it seems, to my knowledge, you're the only member
> expressing such a viewpoint.
>
>
>>
>> Notably, it's not about proposing that W3C adheres to every regulation in
>> every jurisdiction. That may indeed lead to an impractical "slippery slope"
>> situation, as you've outlined.
>>
>> Promoting potentially illegal activities under the W3C banner is
>> concerning for a couple of reasons.
>>
>> Yes. But promoting adherence to one country's law that doesn't cover
>> somewhere in the order of 80-90% of Web users, while explicitly ignoring
>> that of other countries seems to me a terrible idea, and I plead with the
>> working group not to follow such a path.
>>
>> Firstly, it could be seen as an endorsement or promotion of these
>> activities,
>>
>> This seems a stretch. Apart from the fact that you can add something to a
>> registry, where is the endorsement?
>>
>> Can you please explain a particular case where it seems like the group is
>> (or may, by following its current approach) endorsing something that has
>> been *formally alleged* to be illegal by a body such as the SEC? I mean,
>> not an assertion by some smart person, but something that is clearly at
>> least *very* likely to end up in court - because this gives us some sense
>> that it's worth following up to see how reality turns out. By the same
>> token, I am not asking you to demonstrate that something *is* illegal
>> (although by assuming the right jurisdiction this probably becomes trivial
>> for anything involving trading in a cryptocurrency), just that there's a
>> serious allegation that's likely to be tested.
>>
>> I don't see any endorsement of tokens that might be securities, let alone
>> any endorsement of people who are selling them in a way that is illegal.
>> Remember, there are legal ways to sell securities in the US. Being a
>> security is not an inherent problem, that's why there is "securities law".
>>
>> It's hard (and I believe irresponsible) to endorse a decision whose goal
>> is to avoid something that one doesn't believe is a risk.
>>
>> which could lead to an increase in network effects and, subsequently, an
>> increase in token prices.This could be problematic as it can be interpreted
>> as a violation of securities laws if these tokens are deemed unregistered
>> securities.
>>
>> Perhaps that could happen. There are a lot of conditions being stacked up
>> in this hypothetical. I am afraid that as I look at them, they seem to add
>> up to "in a particular set of circumstances, it is possible to imagine an
>> idiosyncratic interpretation of our actions that suggests we are
>> responsible for promoting a security".
>>
>> This approach also seems to me to very obviously fail the "reasonable
>> person" test that would be applied at law in a number of countries, such as
>> the US. Likewise, it seems to ignore reality. (Those are pretty similar
>> claims in practice).
>>
>> This is why I think it is important to demonstrate the practical issue,
>> as requested above.
>>
>> Secondly, doing so could risk damaging the reputation of the W3C and
>> undermining the transparency and trust that are critical to its operations.
>>
>> Sure. However, as explained above with regard to the necessary chain of
>> what seem to be incredibly unlikely interpretations and events, I think the
>> risk is risibly small. This is particularly so when I compare it to things
>> that damage our reputation like not being a suitable place to do the work
>> we aim to take on.
>>
>> It seems to me that accepting the argument of reputational risk you have
>> repeated as a reason not to accept blockchain-based methods for DIDs would
>> damage our reputation as an organisation capable of holding complicated
>> technical discussions and making systems that are suitable for use around
>> the world more than rejecting the argument and running the risk you are
>> describing.
>>
>>
>> cheers
>>
>> Chaals
>>
>>
>>> [1]:
>>>
>>> https://asia.nikkei.com/Spotlight/Cryptocurrencies/Chinese-crypto-activity-slows-but-not-dead-despite-ban
>>> <https://www.google.com/url?q=https://asia.nikkei.com/Spotlight/Cryptocurrencies/Chinese-crypto-activity-slows-but-not-dead-despite-ban&source=gmail-imap&ust=1687853203000000&usg=AOvVaw3XFKdKbaffi4OK2pDlKe8o>
>>>
>>> On Fri, 16 Jun 2023 at 2:17 AM Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I was looking for a potential list of securities, that may be used
>>>> improve the did method registry, and closest I came to was this article,
>>>> there may be better:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> https://beincrypto.com/full-list-cryptos-securities-sec-lawsuit-binance-coinbase/
>>>> <https://www.google.com/url?q=https://beincrypto.com/full-list-cryptos-securities-sec-lawsuit-binance-coinbase/&source=gmail-imap&ust=1687853203000000&usg=AOvVaw3hmi4g5w05phsr8vAQYoxP>
>>>>
>>>> criteria: an investment of money, in a common enterprise, with an
>>>> expectation of profit derived predominantly from the efforts of others
>>>>
>>>> List:
>>>>
>>>> Cosmos (ATOM)
>>>> Binance Coin (BNB)
>>>> Binance USD (BUSD)
>>>> COTI (COTI)
>>>> Chiliz (CHZ)
>>>> Near (NEAR)
>>>> Flow (FLOW)
>>>> Internet Computer (ICP)
>>>> Voyager Token (VGX)
>>>> Dash (DASH)
>>>> Nexo (NEXO)
>>>> Solana (SOL)
>>>> Cardano (ADA)
>>>> Polygon (MATIC)
>>>> Filecoin (FIL)
>>>> The Sandbox (SAND)
>>>> Decentraland (MANA)
>>>> Algorand (ALGO)
>>>> Axie Infinity (AXS)
>>>>
>>>> Prominent cryptocurrencies previously declared securities by the SEC
>>>> include:
>>>>
>>>> Ripple (XRP)
>>>> Telegram’s Gram (TON)
>>>> LBRY Credits (LBC)
>>>> OmiseGo (OMG)
>>>> DASH (DASH)
>>>> Algorand (ALGO)
>>>> Naga (NGC)
>>>> Monolith (TKN)
>>>> IHT Real Estate (IHT)
>>>> Power Ledger (POWR)
>>>> Kromatica (KROM)
>>>> DFX Finance (DFX)
>>>> Amp (AMP)
>>>> Rally (RLY)
>>>> Rari Governance Token (RGT)
>>>> DerivaDAO (DDX)
>>>> XYO Network (XYO)
>>>> Liechtenstein Cryptoasset Exchange (LCX)
>>>> Kin (KIN)
>>>> Salt Lending (SALT)
>>>> Beaxy Token (BXY)
>>>> DragonChain (DRGN)
>>>> Tron (TRX)
>>>> BitTorrent (BTT)
>>>> Terra USD (UST)
>>>> Luna (LUNA)
>>>> Mirror Protocol (MIR)
>>>> Mango (MNGO)
>>>> Ducat (DUCAT)
>>>> Locke (LOCKE)
>>>> EthereumMax (EMAX)
>>>> Hydro (HYDRO)
>>>> BitConnect (BCC)
>>>> Meta 1 Coin (META1)
>>>> Filecoin (FIL)
>>>> Binance Coin (BNB)
>>>> Binance USD (BUSD)
>>>> Solana (SOL)
>>>> Cardano (ADA)
>>>> Polygon (MATIC)
>>>> Cosmos (ATOM)
>>>> The Sandbox (SAND)
>>>> Decentraland (MANA)
>>>> Axie Infinity (AXS)
>>>> COTI (COTI)
>>>> Paragon (PRG)
>>>> AirToken (AIR)
>>>> Chiliz (CHZ)
>>>> Flow (FLOW)
>>>> Internet Computer (ICP)
>>>> Near (NEAR)
>>>> Voyager Token (VGX)
>>>> Nexo (NEXO)
>>>> Mirrored Apple Inc. (mAAPL)
>>>> Mirrored Amazon.com, Inc. (mAMZN)
>>>> Mirrored Alibaba Group Holding Limited (mBABA)
>>>> Mirrored Alphabet Inc. (mGOOGL)
>>>> Mirrored Microsoft Corporation (mMSFT)
>>>> Mirrored Netflix, Inc. (mNFLX)
>>>> Mirrored Tesla, Inc. (mTSLA)
>>>> Mirrored Twitter Inc. (mTWTR)
>>>> Mirrored iShares Gold Trust (mIAU)
>>>> Mirrored Invesco QQQ Trust (mQQQ)
>>>> Mirrored iShares Silver Trust (mSLV)
>>>> Mirrored United States Oil Fund, LP (mUSO),
>>>> Mirrored ProShares VIX Short-Term Futures ETF (mVIXY)
>>>>
>>>> These instruments should not be promoted under the w3c banner, imho
>>>>
>>>
>> --
>> Charles 'Chaals' Nevile
>> Lead Standards Architect, ConsenSys Inc
>>
>
>