• Tag Archives SEC
  • Why the SEC Is Terrified of Cryptocurrency

    Why the SEC Is Terrified of Cryptocurrency

    The federal government is no match for innovation. This is something lawmakers have always known, and it is the reason state and federal regulations exist. But innovation, by its very nature, will always find a way around those regulations, resulting in the implementation of more regulations for creative minds to learn to evade – which they will. This results in the over-regulation we see in America today.

    Nothing scares the government more than something it can’t control, and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) revealed this week that it is terrified of cryptocurrencies – as well it should be.

    Targeting ICOs

    See, all those lawmakers and bureaucrats sitting around regulating everything depend on taxpayer money to pay their salaries so they can keep writing regulations. Since cryptocurrencies allow people to keep all of their money, this is a big problem for the lawmakers. Soon, people may even start to realize they can buy, sell, and trade freely without any government intervention. The horror.

    So the SEC recently got together to write up even more regulations to try to scare people away from using cryptocurrencies and the blockchain by targeting Initial Coin Offerings, or ICOs.

    Initial Coin Offerings have become very popular recently as a way for crypto start-ups to raise funds for their ventures using digital tokens (cryptocurrency) like Bitcoin or Ethers. They operate on a blockchain, which is a decentralized digital ledger of publicly and chronologically-recorded cryptocurrency transactions. Investopedia gives a wonderfully detailed breakdown of how ICOs work. You can read it here or watch an explanation by technologist and author of The Internet of Money and Mastering Bitcoin Andreas Antonopoulos here.

    Basically, with the birth of the ICO came the emergence of a whole new market – one with a great deal of money floating around that the federal government couldn’t take by force. Naturally, this had to be investigated, and on July 25, the SEC released a Report of Investigation under Section 21(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

    The investigation zeroed in on the DAO, a distributed autonomous organization that set the record for the largest crowdfunding campaign in history, raising over $150 million in ether in 2016. According to the report published by the SEC:

    The Commission applied existing U.S. federal securities laws to this new paradigm, determining that DAO Tokens were securities. The Commission stressed that those who offer and sell securities in the U.S. are required to comply with federal securities laws, regardless of whether those securities are purchased with virtual currencies or distributed with blockchain technology.”

    Good Luck!

    Or, as crowdfunding lawyer Amy Y. Wan explains the press release amounts to the SEC saying: “For those of you out there doing ICOs, we’re here to warn you that U.S. securities laws might apply. When we say might, we mean just that – sometimes securities law will apply, sometimes it won’t. It depends on the specific facts of the ICO.”

    Okay, so the government wants to regulate virtual tokens, aka cryptocurrency. Good luck. As blockchain engineer Elaine Ou pointed out on Twitter, ICO’s are “Untraceable, international, [have] no central authority, [and] funds can’t be frozen. The SEC ICO warning is the best ad for ICO’s.”

    So while the government can – and will – continue to make the lives of innocent people miserable using weapons like civil asset forfeiture, crypto regulations, web-provider takedowns, and the war on drugs, these are all last ditch efforts by a desperate ruling class on its death bed.

    The creativity and resilience human beings possess do not exist within the jurisdiction of the government – no matter how hard it tries to convince us otherwise.

    Reprinted from The Anti-Media.


    Josie Wales

    Josie Wales, journalist for the Anti-Media, is a writer, public speaker, YouTube personality, and activist from Philadelphia. She is also a tech writer for d10e, and formerly worked as an editor and contributing writer at The Free Thought Project. Josie covers disruptive technology, artificial intelligence, innovation, tech solutions, and digital privacy issues for Anti-Media.

    This article was originally published on FEE.org. Read the original article.


  • What Is the SEC Doing to Blockchain Technology?

    What Is the SEC Doing to Blockchain Technology?

    To be sure, the question in this article’s title is entirely rhetorical, because the regulators surely don’t know what they are doing. Certainly no one active in the blockchain industry knows precisely what the SEC is doing. That is being debated all over the world right now. 

    This much seems clear: arbitrary government power will henceforth threaten constantly to hobble the advance of distributed ledger technology, trying for force fit it into some old model that exists on regulatory books, so long as doing so is viable until technological evolution makes fools of them all. And it will.

    An Ominous Warning 

    In case you haven’t heard, the SEC has just issued a very strange warning/threat/edict to the effect that cryptoasset tokens of “distributed autonomous organizations” will be regulated like regular securities. The announcement casts doubt that these crypto-innovations are anything but deceptive ways to get around the law, so the SEC is provoked to say: we still matter, and all your fancy language about tokens and assets changes nothing. 

    For anyone in this industry, it is a strange thing to claim. It comes across like the Department of Agriculture’s announcing that satellites will be regulated like livestock, or that math will be controlled under a law designed for vegetables.

    However, the SEC also says that whether digital assets will be considered securities “will depend on the facts and circumstances, including the economic realities of the transaction.” Only the SEC can say for sure. 

    The question is how narrowly or broadly will this regulatory threat apply. This is where the confusion begins. Does it apply narrowly only to the DAO case from last year, which was huge at the time but buggy and led to the Etherium fork? In other words, is this just the usual pretend excuse of consumer protection?

    Or will it apply to every case of a token sale that uses blockchain technology? You can’t really tell from the language of the announcement, which is circuitous and merely suggestive amidst its faux-decisiveness. The SEC announcement on cryptoassets is ambiguous as a Papal encyclical issued under Pope Francis.

    Maybe it is nothing serious, as the well-connected Coin Center hopes:

    What the SEC did not say is that all tokens are securities. Rather, they suggest a facts and circumstances test but only analyze the facts and circumstances surrounding last year’s DAO token sale.

    We believe that applying the same facts and circumstances test to other tokens will mean that some do not fit into the definition of securities, particularly tokens with an underlying utility rather than a mere speculative investment value.

    The Blockchain Makes Peace and Prosperity Possible

    Or perhaps someone in Washington truly believes that the most extraordinary technological innovation since the Internet can be made to work like the technology it is intended to replace. It’s like trying to make the lightbulb operate just like the whale-oil lamp. And actually it is not different from Ayn Rand’s tale of Anthem.

    The market for cryptoassets is booming beyond belief, approaching the market capitalization of Ireland or Austria, all in a few short years. It’s because smart money is figuring out just what an amazing innovation blockchain is. It has taken nine years to fully dawn on people.

    This is not really about Bitcoin as such, or even just monetary innovation, though there is that, and that in itself would be amazing enough. This is about a new and vastly improved path for human engagement itself: documenting claims, establishing ownership, communicating in a reliable way across the globe person to person, and establishing new rules for making peace and prosperity possible.  

    In the particular case of these “tokens” or “coins,” they do not operate like securities, which are ownership shares in the profits and interest of particular companies. These crypto tokens are vessels for valuing the authority to access ledgers that power human services. They come and go, as with any other market. Yes, people lose their shirts in this market, and others get rich. This is part of the exploratory process that is embedded in market evolution, particularly in these early days. 

    The market must be allowed to work at warp speed! As for the many, many pump-and-dumps, scams, and silly claims in deceptive white papers, there is just no way for government to police all this. The market is too new and active. These markets regulate themselves. Also: consumer beware! 

    There are plenty of legitimate companies in this sector now, many built on the platform that the SEC seems to disrespect. Even government agencies have contracted with them to provide services that are otherwise unavailable. 

    Also, these token sales help raise capital for new ventures, precisely because they are unregulated on platforms that have never existed before in human history. They have come along at a time when VC and bank funding have dried up, and when the practice of going public on regulated exchanges has become the privilege of a few. Everyone but the most highly capitalized has been shut out. Cryptoasset markets are free, which is why they are unleashing an amazing amount of creative and wealth-creating energy.

    A Good Idea Cannot By Killed Bureaucracy

    The SEC seems inclined literally to stop the progress of history, with old world coercion, as if mere announcements from bureaucrats will shape the world and the pace of social evolution in the long run. If this is serious, and if the bureaucracy follows through, it could be the most devastating economic regulation of our lifetimes.

    However, there is the short run and the long run. Perhaps in the short run, this news could have a chilling effect on the market, or worse. Or maybe it is all just bluster.

    The markets have so far sent mixed signals on the announcement. They are generally down across the board, but not nearly as much as you might expect from an existential threat. It seems like there are many buyers in the space right now, hoping for bargains. 

    In the long run, there is nothing that can stop a good idea from triumphing over reactionary attempts to stop it. That’s because ideas are portable and live on a metaphorical distributed ledger themselves, one that long pre-exists the blockchain. A good idea cannot be killed by mere bureaucracy.

    There is also the matter of geography and borders, which thankfully still restrain the state to some extent. Intellectual and digital capital fly to where they are loved and not bludgeoned. The United States could become the world haven for great innovation, but not with these kinds of actions from the SEC (but you could substitute any bureaucracy in for those letters).

    The future loves freedom, and freedom loves any jurisdiction in which it is valued, guarded, and celebrated. The SEC statement on blockchain technology is not the right way to go about this.


    Jeffrey A. Tucker

    Jeffrey Tucker is Director of Content for the Foundation for Economic Education. He is also Chief Liberty Officer and founder of Liberty.me, Distinguished Honorary Member of Mises Brazil, research fellow at the Acton Institute, policy adviser of the Heartland Institute, founder of the CryptoCurrency Conference, member of the editorial board of the Molinari Review, an advisor to the blockchain application builder Factom, and author of five books. He has written 150 introductions to books and many thousands of articles appearing in the scholarly and popular press.

    This article was originally published on FEE.org. Read the original article.


  • EFF to the SEC: Get a Warrant

    If the federal government wants to compel an online service provider, like Yahoo or Google, to turn over your email, they need a warrant. That’s the industry-accepted best practice, implemented by nearly every major service provider. More importantly, it’s what the Fourth Amendment requires.




    The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the federal agency charged with enforcing federal securities laws, seems to think it falls outside the warrant requirement. In a civil case currently pending in Maryland, the agency asked a federal judge to compel Yahoo to comply with an administrative subpoena—read, not a warrant—it sent to the company, which would require the company to turn over the emails of one of its users. An administrative subpoena lacks the privacy safeguards of a warrant, including a higher standard justifying government access (i.e., probable cause) and prior review by a judge.

    Yahoo fought back, refusing to comply with the subpoena and opposing the SEC’s motion. Last week, EFF, joined by our friends at CDT, filed an amicus brief in support of Yahoo. Our brief made a simple point: if the federal government wants to compel a third-party provider to turn over a user’s email, it needs a warrant. That rule applies to the SEC, just as any other federal or state government agency.

    The SEC’s position isn’t a new one. They have long claimed a right to access email content from providers without a warrant. In fact, the SEC has been one of the primary obstacles to passing an update to the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), the federal law that governs government access to emails and other content stored in the cloud. But this is the first time (as far as we know) that the SEC has tested its theory in court.

    Fortunately, even though the SEC has so far been successful in blocking attempts to amend ECPA, the agency still has to contend with the Constitution. As we explained in our brief, because users have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their email stored with online service providers (a point SEC wisely conceded), the Fourth Amendment requires the agency to obtain a warrant—or to rely on an exception to the warrant requirement—in order to intrude upon that privacy.

    The SEC argues that, as a civil law enforcement agency, it lacks the power to obtain a warrant by itself. But as we pointed out, whenever there is a criminal component to an investigation—as is the case here—the SEC can coordinate with the Justice Department to obtain a warrant. Apparently, the SEC is concerned that, in purely civil cases, when it can’t work with the Justice Department to obtain a warrant, companies or individuals may be able to shield their emails from disclosure. But civil litigation offers a variety of levers for the SEC to pull in order to obtain the same or similar information, without compelling its disclosure from a third-party service provider.

    Ultimately, our constitutional privacy rights shouldn’t be diminished just because the SEC wants to conduct its investigations more efficiently. The hearing in the case is scheduled for Friday, June 30. We hope the court will send a clear message to government agencies: if you want to compel a third-party provider to turn over email content, get a warrant.

    Source: EFF to the SEC: Get a Warrant | Electronic Frontier Foundation