,,,Initial Coin Offerings as Investment Contracts: Are Blockchain Utility Tokens Securities?

Nate Crosser
{"title":",,,Initial Coin Offerings as Investment Contracts: Are Blockchain Utility Tokens Securities?","authors":"Nate Crosser","doi":"10.17161/1808.27486","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Current American jurisprudence on digital assets (e.g. Bitcoin) is woefully underdeveloped due to the rapid development and adoption of blockchain technology—creating an intellectual gold rush with agencies, attorneys, and techies all shouting their positions (on securities laws, particularly) into the wind. This Comment enters the ether in an endeavor to counter prevailing federal agency narratives about the role of securities laws regarding “ICOs”—introducing the reader to the most pertinent features of blockchain technology and Initial Coin Offerings, introducing the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s (the “SEC”) current regulatory approach, and applying the seminal Howey is-it-a-security test. Initial Coin Offerings (ICOs) are the online sale of cryptographic assets used to launch a cryptocurrency, finance a blockchain application development project, or sell access to features of a blockchain application.1 ICOs, also called Token Sales or Token Generation Events, are financing mechanisms popularly viewed as a hybrid of a Wall Street Initial Public Offering of Stock (IPO),2 venture capital,3 and crowdfunding (like Kickstarter).4 ICOs can be used to facilitate a broad range of","PeriodicalId":83417,"journal":{"name":"University of Kansas law review. University of Kansas. School of Law","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"8","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"University of Kansas law review. University of Kansas. School of Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17161/1808.27486","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 8

Abstract

Current American jurisprudence on digital assets (e.g. Bitcoin) is woefully underdeveloped due to the rapid development and adoption of blockchain technology—creating an intellectual gold rush with agencies, attorneys, and techies all shouting their positions (on securities laws, particularly) into the wind. This Comment enters the ether in an endeavor to counter prevailing federal agency narratives about the role of securities laws regarding “ICOs”—introducing the reader to the most pertinent features of blockchain technology and Initial Coin Offerings, introducing the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s (the “SEC”) current regulatory approach, and applying the seminal Howey is-it-a-security test. Initial Coin Offerings (ICOs) are the online sale of cryptographic assets used to launch a cryptocurrency, finance a blockchain application development project, or sell access to features of a blockchain application.1 ICOs, also called Token Sales or Token Generation Events, are financing mechanisms popularly viewed as a hybrid of a Wall Street Initial Public Offering of Stock (IPO),2 venture capital,3 and crowdfunding (like Kickstarter).4 ICOs can be used to facilitate a broad range of
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
作为投资合同的首次代币发行:区块链实用型代币是证券吗?
由于区块链技术的快速发展和采用,目前美国关于数字资产(例如比特币)的法理严重不发达,这导致了一场知识淘金热,机构、律师和技术人员都在大声宣扬自己的立场(特别是在证券法方面)。本评论旨在反驳联邦机构对“ico”证券法作用的主流叙述,向读者介绍区块链技术和首次代币发行的最相关特征,介绍美国证券交易委员会(“SEC”)当前的监管方法,并应用开创性的Howey is-it-a-security测试。首次代币发行(ico)是在线销售加密资产,用于启动加密货币,为区块链应用程序开发项目提供资金,或出售区块链应用程序功能的访问权限ico,也被称为代币销售或代币生成事件,是一种融资机制,通常被视为华尔街首次公开发行股票(IPO)、风险投资、众筹(如Kickstarter)的混合体ico可用于促进广泛的
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
,,,Toxic Secrecy: Non-Disclosure Agreements and #MeToo ,,,Dressing for Success: Lawyers & Clothing in Nineteenth Century America ,,,Lawyers for White People? ,,,Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Discrimination Claims Under the Fair Housing Act After Bostock v. Clayton County ,,,Getting It Right Isn’t Enough: The Appellate Court’s Role in Procedural Justice
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1