#sec称回购与升级不必然使代币成证券
👉 回购不自动等于证券
SEC updated a set of frequently asked questions.
The document only said one thing: a buyback does not automatically equal a security.
The same applies to network upgrades.
The official position is that, for networks that are already operating.
Announcing the buyback itself does not constitute an investment contract.
When the network hasn’t started running yet, the conclusion is different.
If you describe the buyback as a source of returns for token holders, the boundaries need to be redrawn.
The document also mentioned that maintaining and improving the system does not count as managerial efforts.
This interpretation used in the Hawey test has historically been the hardest one to argue.
Pledged certificates were also brought up—possibly as digital instruments or digital commodities.
The document uses a Q&A format.
The form is light, but the weight isn’t.
If the issuer does buybacks going forward, the way the announcements are written needs to change.
One sentence written incorrectly could end up being redefined.
These few lines don’t change the law, but they do change expectations.
For crypto, enforcement uncertainty has been reduced by another layer.
Do you think what this interpretation will set free next is buybacks or pledges? Chat in the comments.
👉 回购不自动等于证券
SEC updated a set of frequently asked questions.
The document only said one thing: a buyback does not automatically equal a security.
The same applies to network upgrades.
The official position is that, for networks that are already operating.
Announcing the buyback itself does not constitute an investment contract.
When the network hasn’t started running yet, the conclusion is different.
If you describe the buyback as a source of returns for token holders, the boundaries need to be redrawn.
The document also mentioned that maintaining and improving the system does not count as managerial efforts.
This interpretation used in the Hawey test has historically been the hardest one to argue.
Pledged certificates were also brought up—possibly as digital instruments or digital commodities.
The document uses a Q&A format.
The form is light, but the weight isn’t.
If the issuer does buybacks going forward, the way the announcements are written needs to change.
One sentence written incorrectly could end up being redefined.
These few lines don’t change the law, but they do change expectations.
For crypto, enforcement uncertainty has been reduced by another layer.
Do you think what this interpretation will set free next is buybacks or pledges? Chat in the comments.
