CanWork Freelance

SEC v. @Binance Update II The hearing is concluded. Some big picture takeaways: -the judge seems skeptical of the idea that $BUSD stablecoin was offered as an investment contract. -the judge seems receptive to the argument that Binance initially offered the $BNB token as an investment contract. -the judge seems uncomfortable with the idea that the token (even if offered initially as an investment contract) continues to be a security when traded on a secondary market for all eternity. -the SEC lawyer claims the token "embodies" the investment contract--which seems at odds with earlier statements that the token is nothing but lines of code. -the judge was resistant to the idea of having mini trials over whether the 10 other tokens listed in the complaint were sold as investment contracts when the issuers of those 10 tokens are not in the case. -the only other third-party issued token mentioned was Filecoin. No specific mention of $ADA or $SOL or the others. -the judge asked the SEC what the "boundary" is between tokens that are investment contracts and those that are not--because there are people buying and selling these assets and they need to know. (nearly verbatim} It is hard (for me) to distinguish between the SEC's articulation of how a token may be an investment contract and what is happening operationally with #Ethereum every day. I am a little disappointed that the Binance lawyers never argued that crypto tokens can not be investment contracts if they do not carry with them rights to the income, assets, or profits of the underlying enterprise. But I guess that's just me Monday morning quarterbacking. That's all folks! Not legal advice.