SEC官員稱比特幣以太坊不是證券，提出6大判斷標準_THE:AND

DigitalAssetTransactions:WhenHoweyMetGary(Plastic)RemarksattheYahooFinanceAllMarketsSummit:CryptoThankyouAndy.Iampleasedtobeheretoday.Thiseventprovidesagreatopportunitytoaddressatopicthatisthesubjectofconsiderabledebateinthepressandinthecrypto-community–whetheradigitalassetofferedasasecuritycan,overtime,becomesomethingotherthanasecurity.Tostart,weshouldframethequestiondifferentlyandfocusnotonthedigitalassetitself,butonthecircumstancessurroundingthedigitalassetandthemannerinwhichitissold.Tothatend,abetterlineofinquiryis:“Canadigitalassetthatwasoriginallyofferedinasecuritiesofferingeverbelatersoldinamannerthatdoesnotconstituteanofferingofasecurity?”Incaseswherethedigitalassetrepresentsasetofrightsthatgivestheholderafinancialinterestinanenterprise,theanswerislikely“no.”Inthesecases,callingthetransactionaninitialcoinoffering,or“ICO,”orasaleofa“token,”willnottakeitoutofthepurviewoftheU.S.securitieslaws.Butwhataboutcaseswherethereisnolongeranycentralenterprisebeinginvestedinorwherethedigitalassetissoldonlytobeusedtopurchaseagoodorserviceavailablethroughthenetworkonwhichitwascreated?Ibelieveinthesecasestheanswerisaqualified“yes.”Iwouldliketosharemythinkingwithyoutodayaboutthecircumstancesunderwhichthatcouldoccur.BeforeIturntothesecuritieslawanalysis,letmesharewhatIbelievemaybemostexcitingaboutdistributedledgertechnology–thatis,thepotentialtoshareinformation,transfervalue,andrecordtransactionsinadecentralizeddigitalenvironment.Potentialapplicationsincludesupplychainmanagement,intellectualpropertyrightslicensing,stockownershiptransfersandcountlessothers.Thereisrealvalueincreatingapplicationsthatcanbeaccessedandexecutedelectronicallywithapublic,immutablerecordandwithouttheneedforatrustedthirdpartytoverifytransactions.Somepeoplebelievethatthistechnologywilltransforme-commerceasweknowit.Thereisexcitementandagreatdealofspeculativeinterestaroundthisnewtechnology.Unfortunately,therealsoarecasesoffraud.Inmanyregards,itisstill“earlydays.”ButIamnotheretodiscussthepromiseoftechnology–therearemanyinattendanceandspeakingheretodaythatcandoamuchbetterjobofthat.Iwouldliketofocusontheapplicationofthefederalsecuritieslawstodigitalassettransactions–thatishowtokensandcoinsarebeingissued,distributedandsold.Whileperhapsabitdryerthanthepromiseoftheblockchain,thistopiciscriticaltothebroaderacceptanceanduseofthesenovelinstruments.IwillbeginbydescribingwhatIoftensee.Promoters,inordertoraisemoneytodevelopnetworksonwhichdigitalassetswilloperate,oftensellthetokensorcoinsratherthansellshares,issuenotesorobtainbankfinancing.But,inmanycases,theeconomicsubstanceisthesameasaconventionalsecuritiesoffering.Fundsareraisedwiththeexpectationthatthepromoterswillbuildtheirsystemandinvestorscanearnareturnontheinstrument–usuallybysellingtheirtokensinthesecondarymarketoncethepromoterscreatesomethingofvaluewiththeproceedsandthevalueofthedigitalenterpriseincreases.Whenweseethatkindofeconomictransaction,itiseasytoapplytheSupremeCourt’s“investmentcontract”testfirstannouncedinSECv.Howey.Thattestrequiresaninvestmentofmoneyinacommonenterprisewithanexpectationofprofitderivedfromtheeffortsofothers.AnditisimportanttoreflectonthefactsofHowey.Ahoteloperatorsoldinterestsinacitrusgrovetoitsguestsandclaimeditwassellingrealestate,notsecurities.Whilethetransactionwasrecordedasarealestatesale,italsoincludedaservicecontracttocultivateandharvesttheoranges.Thepurchaserscouldhavearrangedtoservicethegrovethemselvesbut,infact,mostwerepassive,relyingontheeffortsofHowey-in-the-HillsService,Inc.forareturn.Inarticulatingthetestforaninvestmentcontract,theSupremeCourtstressed:“Formdisregardedforsubstanceandtheemphasisplaceduponeconomicreality.”Sothepurportedrealestatepurchasewasfoundtobeaninvestmentcontract–aninvestmentinorangegroveswasinthesecircumstancesaninvestmentinasecurity.JustasintheHoweycase,tokensandcoinsareoftentoutedasassetsthathaveauseintheirownright,coupledwithapromisethattheassetswillbecultivatedinawaythatwillcausethemtogrowinvalue,tobesoldlaterataprofit.And,asinHowey–whereinterestsinthegrovesweresoldtohotelguests,notfarmers–tokensandcoinstypicallyaresoldtoawideaudienceratherthantopersonswhoarelikelytousethemonthenetwork.IntheICOsIhaveseen,overwhelmingly,promoterstouttheirabilitytocreateaninnovativeapplicationofblockchaintechnology.LikeinHowey,theinvestorsarepassive.Marketingeffortsarerarelynarrowlytargetedtotokenusers.Andtypicallyattheoutset,thebusinessmodelandveryviabilityoftheapplicationisstilluncertain.Thepurchaserusuallyhasnochoicebuttorelyontheeffortsofthepromotertobuildthenetworkandmaketheenterpriseasuccess.Atthatstage,thepurchaseofatokenlooksalotlikeabetonthesuccessoftheenterpriseandnotthepurchaseofsomethingusedtoexchangeforgoodsorservicesonthenetwork.Asanaside,youmightask,giventhatthesetokensalesoftenlooklikesecuritiesofferings,whyarethepromoterschoosingtopackagetheinvestmentasacoinortokenoffering?Thisisanespeciallygoodquestionifthenetworkonwhichthetokenorcoinwillfunctionisnotyetoperational.Ithinktherecanbeanumberofreasons.Forawhile,somebelievedsuchlabelingmight,byitself,removethetransactionfromthesecuritieslaws.Ithinkpeoplenowrealizelabelinganinvestmentopportunityasacoinortokendoesnotachievethatresult.Second,thislabelingmighthavebeenusedtobringsomemarketing“sizzle”totheenterprise.Thatmightstillworktosomeextent,butthetrackrecordofICOsisstillbeingsortedoutandsomeofthatsizzlemaynowbemoreofapotentialwarningflareforinvestors.Somemaybeattractedtoablockchain-mediatedcrowdfundingprocess.Digitalassetscanrepresentanefficientwaytoreachaglobalaudiencewhereinitialpurchasershaveastakeinthesuccessofthenetworkandbecomepartofanetworkwheretheirparticipationaddsvaluebeyondtheirinvestmentcontributions.Thedigitalassetsarethenexchanged–forsome,tohelpfindthemarketpriceforthenewapplication;forothers,tospeculateontheventure.AsIwilldiscuss,whetheratransactioninacoinortokenonthesecondarymarketamountstoanofferorsaleofasecurityrequiresacarefulandfact-sensitivelegalanalysis.Ibelievesomeindustryparticipantsarebeginningtorealizethat,insomecircumstances,itmightbeeasiertostartablockchain-basedenterpriseinamoreconventionalway.Inotherwords,conducttheinitialfundingthrougharegisteredorexemptequityordebtofferingand,oncethenetworkisupandrunning,distributeorofferblockchain-basedtokensorcoinstoparticipantswhoneedthefunctionalitythenetworkandthedigitalassetsoffer.Thisallowsthetokensorcoinstobestructuredandofferedinawaywhereitisevidentthatpurchasersarenotmakinganinvestmentinthedevelopmentoftheenterprise.ReturningtotheICOsIamseeing,strictlyspeaking,thetoken–orcoinorwhateverthedigitalinformationpacketiscalled–allbyitselfisnotasecurity,justastheorangegrovesinHoweywerenot.Centraltodeterminingwhetherasecurityisbeingsoldishowitisbeingsoldandthereasonableexpectationsofpurchasers.Whensomeonebuysahousingunittolivein,itisprobablynotasecurity.Butundercertaincircumstances,thesameassetcanbeofferedandsoldinawaythatcausesinvestorstohaveareasonableexpectationofprofitsbasedontheeffortsofothers.Forexample,ifthehousingunitisofferedwithamanagementcontractorotherservices,itcanbeasecurity.Similarly,whenaCD,exemptfrombeingtreatedasasecurityunderSection3oftheSecuritiesAct,issoldasapartofaprogramorganizedbyabrokerwhooffersretailinvestorspromisesofliquidityandthepotentialtoprofitfromchangesininterestrates,theGaryPlasticcaseteachesusthattheinstrumentcanbepartofaninvestmentcontractthatisasecurity.Thesamereasoningappliestodigitalassets.Thedigitalassetitselfissimplycode.Butthewayitissold–aspartofaninvestment;tonon-users;bypromoterstodeveloptheenterprise–canbe,and,inthatcontext,mostoftenis,asecurity–becauseitevidencesaninvestmentcontract.Andregulatingthesetransactionsassecuritiestransactionsmakessense.TheimpetusoftheSecuritiesActistoremovetheinformationasymmetrybetweenpromotersandinvestors.Inapublicdistribution,theSecuritiesActprescribestheinformationinvestorsneedtomakeaninformedinvestmentdecision,andthepromoterisliableformaterialmisstatementsintheofferingmaterials.Theseareimportantsafeguards,andtheyareappropriateformostICOs.ThedisclosuresrequiredunderthefederalsecuritieslawsnicelycomplementtheHoweyinvestmentcontractelementabouttheeffortsofothers.Asaninvestor,thesuccessoftheenterprise–andtheabilitytorealizeaprofitontheinvestment–turnsontheeffortsofthethirdparty.Solearningmaterialinformationaboutthethirdparty–itsbackground,financing,plans,financialstakeandsoforth–isaprerequisitetomakinganinformedinvestmentdecision.Withoutaregulatoryframeworkthatpromotesdisclosureofwhatthethirdpartyaloneknowsofthesetopicsandtherisksassociatedwiththeventure,investorswillbeuninformedandareatrisk.Butthisalsopointsthewaytowhenadigitalassettransactionmaynolongerrepresentasecurityoffering.Ifthenetworkonwhichthetokenorcoinistofunctionissufficientlydecentralized–wherepurchaserswouldnolongerreasonablyexpectapersonorgrouptocarryoutessentialmanagerialorentrepreneurialefforts–theassetsmaynotrepresentaninvestmentcontract.Moreover,whentheeffortsofthethirdpartyarenolongerakeyfactorfordeterminingtheenterprise’ssuccess,materialinformationasymmetriesrecede.Asanetworkbecomestrulydecentralized,theabilitytoidentifyanissuerorpromotertomaketherequisitedisclosuresbecomesdifficult,andlessmeaningful.Andso,whenIlookatBitcointoday,Idonotseeacentralthirdpartywhoseeffortsareakeydeterminingfactorintheenterprise.ThenetworkonwhichBitcoinfunctionsisoperationalandappearstohavebeendecentralizedforsometime,perhapsfrominception.ApplyingthedisclosureregimeofthefederalsecuritieslawstotheofferandresaleofBitcoinwouldseemtoaddlittlevalue.AndputtingasidethefundraisingthataccompaniedthecreationofEther,basedonmyunderstandingofthepresentstateofEther,theEthereumnetworkanditsdecentralizedstructure,currentoffersandsalesofEtherarenotsecuritiestransactions.And,aswithBitcoin,applyingthedisclosureregimeofthefederalsecuritieslawstocurrenttransactionsinEtherwouldseemtoaddlittlevalue.Overtime,theremaybeothersufficientlydecentralizednetworksandsystemswhereregulatingthetokensorcoinsthatfunctiononthemassecuritiesmaynotberequired.Andofcoursetherewillcontinuetobesystemsthatrelyoncentralactorswhoseeffortsareakeytothesuccessoftheenterprise.Inthosecases,applicationofthesecuritieslawsprotectstheinvestorswhopurchasethetokensorcoins.Iwouldliketoemphasizethattheanalysisofwhethersomethingisasecurityisnotstaticanddoesnotstrictlyinheretotheinstrument.Evendigitalassetswithutilitythatfunctionsolelyasameansofexchangeinadecentralizednetworkcouldbepackagedandsoldasaninvestmentstrategythatcanbeasecurity.IfapromoterweretoplaceBitcoininafundortrustandsellinterests,itwouldcreateanewsecurity.Similarly,investmentcontractscanbemadeoutofvirtuallyanyasset(includingvirtualassets),providedtheinvestorisreasonablyexpectingprofitsfromthepromoter’sefforts.Letmeemphasizeanearlierpoint:simplylabelingadigitalasseta“utilitytoken”doesnotturntheassetintosomethingthatisnotasecurity.IrecognizethattheSupremeCourthasacknowledgedthatifsomeoneispurchasinganassetforconsumptiononly,itislikelynotasecurity.But,theeconomicsubstanceofthetransactionalwaysdeterminesthelegalanalysis,notthelabels.TheorangesinHoweyhadutility.Orinmyfavoriteexample,theCommissionwarnedinthelate1960saboutinvestmentcontractssoldintheformofwhiskywarehousereceipts.PromoterssoldthereceiptstoU.S.investorstofinancetheagingandblendingprocessesofScotchwhisky.Thewhiskywasreal–and,forsome,hadexquisiteutility.ButHoweywasnotsellingorangesandthewarehousereceiptspromoterswerenotsellingwhiskyforconsumption.Theyweresellinginvestments,andthepurchaserswereexpectingareturnfromthepromoters’efforts.Promotersandothermarketparticipantsneedtounderstandwhethertransactionsinaparticulardigitalassetinvolvethesaleofasecurity.Wearehappytohelppromotersandtheircounselworkthroughtheseissues.Westandpreparedtoprovidemoreformalinterpretiveorno-actionguidanceaboutthepropercharacterizationofadigitalassetinaproposeduse.Inaddition,werecognizethattherearenumerousimplicationsunderthefederalsecuritieslawsofaparticularassetbeingconsideredasecurity.Forexample,ourDivisionsofTradingandMarketsandInvestmentManagementarefocusedonsuchissuesasbroker-dealer,exchangeandfundregistration,aswellasmattersofmarketmanipulation,custodyandvaluation.Weunderstandthatmarketparticipantsareworkingtomaketheirservicescompliantwiththeexistingregulatoryframework,andwearehappytocontinueourengagementinthisprocess.Whataresomeofthefactorstoconsiderinassessingwhetheradigitalassetisofferedasaninvestmentcontractandisthusasecurity?Primarily,considerwhetherathirdparty–beitaperson,entityorcoordinatedgroupofactors–drivestheexpectationofareturn.Thatquestionwillalwaysdependontheparticularfactsandcircumstances,andthislistisillustrative,notexhaustive:Isthereapersonorgroupthathassponsoredorpromotedthecreationandsaleofthedigitalasset,theeffortsofwhomplayasignificantroleinthedevelopmentandmaintenanceoftheassetanditspotentialincreaseinvalue?Hasthispersonorgroupretainedastakeorotherinterestinthedigitalassetsuchthatitwouldbemotivatedtoexpendeffortstocauseanincreaseinvalueinthedigitalasset?Wouldpurchasersreasonablybelievesucheffortswillbeundertakenandmayresultinareturnontheirinvestmentinthedigitalasset?Hasthepromoterraisedanamountoffundsinexcessofwhatmaybeneededtoestablishafunctionalnetwork,and,ifso,hasitindicatedhowthosefundsmaybeusedtosupportthevalueofthetokensortoincreasethevalueoftheenterprise?Doesthepromotercontinuetoexpendfundsfromproceedsoroperationstoenhancethefunctionalityand/orvalueofthesystemwithinwhichthetokensoperate?Arepurchasers“investing,”thatisseekingareturn?Inthatregard,istheinstrumentmarketedandsoldtothegeneralpublicinsteadoftopotentialusersofthenetworkforapricethatreasonablycorrelateswiththemarketvalueofthegoodorserviceinthenetwork?DoesapplicationoftheSecuritiesActprotectionsmakesense?Isthereapersonorentityothersarerelyingonthatplaysakeyroleintheprofit-makingoftheenterprisesuchthatdisclosureoftheiractivitiesandplanswouldbeimportanttoinvestors?Doinformationalasymmetriesexistbetweenthepromotersandpotentialpurchasers/investorsinthedigitalasset?Dopersonsorentitiesotherthanthepromoterexercisegovernancerightsormeaningfulinfluence?Whilethesefactorsareimportantinanalyzingtheroleofanythirdparty,therearecontractualortechnicalwaystostructuredigitalassetssotheyfunctionmorelikeaconsumeritemandlesslikeasecurity.Again,wewouldlooktotheeconomicsubstanceofthetransaction,butpromotersandtheircounselsshouldconsiderthese,andother,possiblefeatures.ThislistisnotintendedtobeexhaustiveandbynomeansdoIbelieveeachandeveryoneofthesefactorsneedstobepresenttoestablishacasethatatokenisnotbeingofferedasasecurity.Thislistismeanttopromptthinkingbypromotersandtheircounsel,andstartthedialoguewiththestaff–itisnotmeanttobealistofallnecessaryfactorsinalegalanalysis.Istokencreationcommensuratewithmeetingtheneedsofusersor,rather,withfeedingspeculation?Areindependentactorssettingthepriceoristhepromotersupportingthesecondarymarketfortheassetorotherwiseinfluencingtrading?Isitclearthattheprimarymotivationforpurchasingthedigitalassetisforpersonaluseorconsumption,ascomparedtoinvestment?Havepurchasersmaderepresentationsastotheirconsumptive,asopposedtotheirinvestment,intent?Arethetokensavailableinincrementsthatcorrelatewithaconsumptiveversusinvestmentintent?Arethetokensdistributedinwaystomeetusers’needs?Forexample,canthetokensbeheldortransferredonlyinamountsthatcorrespondtoapurchaser’sexpecteduse?Aretherebuilt-inincentivesthatcompelusingthetokenspromptlyonthenetwork,suchashavingthetokensdegradeinvalueovertime,orcanthetokensbeheldforextendedperiodsforinvestment?Istheassetmarketedanddistributedtopotentialusersorthegeneralpublic?Aretheassetsdispersedacrossadiverseuserbaseorconcentratedinthehandsofafewthatcanexertinfluenceovertheapplication?Istheapplicationfullyfunctioningorinearlystagesofdevelopment?TheseareexcitinglegaltimesandIampleasedtobepartofaprocessthatcanhelppromotersofthisnewtechnologyandtheircounselnavigateandcomplywiththefederalsecuritieslaws.TheSecuritiesandExchangeCommissiondisclaimsresponsibilityforanyprivatepublicationorstatementofanySECemployeeorCommissioner.Thisspeechexpressestheauthor’sviewsanddoesnotnecessarilyreflectthoseoftheCommission,theCommissionersorothermembersofthestaff.Section2(a)(1)oftheSecuritiesActof1933(SecuritiesAct)andSection3(a)(10)oftheSecuritiesExchangeActof1934(ExchangeAct)define“security.”Thesedefinitionscontain“slightlydifferentformulations”oftheterm“security,”buttheU.S.SupremeCourthas“treatedasessentiallyidenticalinmeaning.”SECv.Edwards,540U.S.389,393(2004).Iamusingtheterm“promoters”inabroad,genericsense.Theimportantfactorinthelegalanalysisisthatthereisapersonorcoordinatedgroup(including“anyunincorporatedorganization”see5U.S.C.§77n(a)(4))thatisworkingactivelytodeveloporguidethedevelopmentoftheinfrastructureofthenetwork.Thispersonorgroupcouldbefounders,sponsors,developersor“promoters”inthetraditionalsense.Thepresenceofpromotersinthiscontextisimportanttodistinguishfromthecircumstancewheremultiple,independentactorsworkonthenetworkbutnoindividualactor’sorcoordinatedgroupofactors’effortsareessentialeffortsthataffectthefailureorsuccessoftheenterprise.SECv.W.J.HoweyCo.,328U.S.293(1946).Dependingonthefeaturesofanygiveninstrumentandthesurroundingfacts,itmayalsoneedtobeevaluatedasapossiblesecurityunderthegeneraldefinitionofsecurity–seefootnote2–andthecaselawinterpretingit.Id.at298.UnitedHousingFound.,Inc.v.Forman,421U.S.837(1975).GuidelinesastotheApplicabilityoftheFederalSecuritiesLawstoOffersandSalesofCondominiumsorUnitsinaRealEstateDevelopment,SECRel.No.33-5347(Jan.4,1973).GaryPlasticPackagingCorp.v.MerrillLynch,Pierce,Fenner&Smith,Inc.,756F.2d230(2dCir.1985).Secondarytradingindigitalassetsbyregulatedentitiesmayotherwiseimplicatethefederalsecuritieslaws,aswellastheCommodityExchangeAct.Inaddition,asSECChairmanJayClaytonhasstated,regulatedfinancialentitiesthatallowforpaymentincryptocurrencies,allowcustomerstopurchasecryptocurrenciesonmarginorotherwiseusecryptocurrenciestofacilitatesecuritiestransactionsshouldexercisecaution,includingensuringthattheircryptocurrencyactivitiesarenotunderminingtheiranti-moneylaunderingandknow-your-customerobligations.StatementonCryptocurrenciesandInitialCoinOfferings(Dec.11,2017).Inaddition,otherlawsandregulations,suchasIRSregulationsandstatemoneyservicinglaws,maybeimplicated.TheSupremeCourt’sinvestmentcontracttest“embodiesaflexibleratherthanastaticprinciple,onethatiscapableofadaptationtomeetthecountlessandvariableschemesdevisedbythosewhoseektheuseofthemoneyofothersonthepromiseofprofits.”Howey,328U.S.at299.“henamegiventoaninstrumentisnotdispositive.”Forman,421U.S.at850.Forman,421U.S.at853.Seefootnotes10and11.SECRel.No.33-5018(Nov.4,1969);InvestmentinInterestsinWhisky,SECRel.No.33-5451(Jan7,1974).Forexample,somehaveraisedquestionsabouttheofferingstructurecommonlyreferredtoasaSimpleAgreementforFutureTokens,or“SAFT.”Becausethelegalanalysismustfollowtheeconomicrealitiesoftheparticularfactsofanoffering,itmaynotbefruitfultodebateahypotheticalstructureintheabstractandnothingintheseremarksismeanttoopineonthelegalityorappropriatenessofaSAFT.Fromthediscussioninthisspeech,however,itisclearIbelieveatokenonceofferedinasecurityofferingcan,dependingonthecircumstances,laterbeofferedinanon-securitiestransaction.Iexpectthatsome,perhapsmany,maynot.IencourageanyonethathasquestionsonaparticularSAFTstructuretoconsultwithknowledgeablesecuritiescounselorthestaff.

Bittrex Global CEO：公司將對美SEC的指控進行抗辯:金色財經報道，Bittrex Global首席執行官Oliver lynch在接受采訪時表示，美國證券交易委員會(SEC)指控加密貨幣交易所Bittrex Global GmbH違反了當地證券法是“錯誤的”。Linch表示，Bittrex Global在收到SEC已“得出初步結論”的通知之前，并不知道自己是SEC調查的對象。他補充說，監管機構沒有給Bittrex Global“解釋事實”的機會。此外，Linch聲稱，該公司“從未聲稱在美國提供服務”，并將“大力”捍衛其在美國沒有任何客戶的立場。此外，他還表示，Bittrex的關閉并不影響Bittrex Global的全球運營，“Bittrex 是一個完全獨立的法人實體，只在美國提供服務，并且只為美國客戶提供服務。Global繼續像以往一樣向世界其他地區的客戶提供服務，”

此前報道，美SEC在今年3月向Bittrex發出韋爾斯通知，指控Bittrex在未向監管機構注冊的情況下作為交易所、經紀自營商和票據交易所開展業務，違反了法律，后者將于4月30日關閉美國業務。[2023/4/27 14:29:04]

律師：SEC對Terra的訴訟可被視為SEC取締其他穩定幣的“路線圖”:金色財經報道，Delphi Labs總法律顧問Gabriel Shapiro在推特上表示，美國證券交易委員會(SEC)對Terraform Labs及其聯合創始人Do Kwon的訴訟可被視為SEC取締其他穩定幣的“路線圖”。Shapiro稱，SEC在對此次訴訟中的論點“比平時更徹底”。SEC的這場訴訟有四個第一次：1.聲稱穩定幣(UST)是一種證券；2.聲稱合成股票（mAsset）是(證券)互換；3，聲稱“封裝代幣”(wLUNA)是一種證券。4.不對代幣使用Howey測試，而是使用“枚舉證券”類型的論點來支持其認為wLUNA是證券的“收據”因而是證券的觀點。

今日早些時候消息，SEC起訴Terraform Labs和Do Kwon，指控其誤導投資者和銷售未注冊證券。[2023/2/17 12:13:18]

Nansen：巨鯨69secrets.eth或為三箭債權人Mirana的地址:7月30日消息，區塊鏈分析公司Nansen發布報告揭露巨鯨錢包地址69secrets.eth的身份，推測其為Mirana的地址。

Mirana Corp的地址（0x738505fa491c972a196582176685fc790d2bdda5）被列入三箭資本（3AC）債權人名單，該地址屬于Mirana Ventures。Mirana被清算3700多萬美元的抵押品，但3AC仍欠其1300萬美元。

Nansen指出，之所以將注意力轉向Mirana，是因為該公司網站上列出的投資項目包括BitDAO、Windranger Labs等，而Mirana本身知名度不太高。Mirana還向新加坡法院對3AC提起法律訴訟。（The Crypto Basic）[2022/7/30 2:48:12]

美SEC主席：提供回報的加密貨幣產品無法逃避監管:9月30日消息，據英國《金融時報》報道，美國證券交易委員會（SEC）主席根斯勒表示，向投資者承諾回報的加密貨幣平臺不要以為自己可以避開SEC的監管。他警告稱，沒有保障，許多人會受害。SEC的立場基于“豪威測試”，即如果有人投資于共同事業且只預期從第三方的努力中獲利，那么該投資合約就要受到聯邦證券法的約束。[2021/9/30 17:17:29]

美國SEC專員：DeFi給SEC帶來了新的挑戰:金色財經報道，美國證券交易委員會（SEC）專員、“加密媽媽”Hester Peirce表示，DeFi和Eth2.0對監管者來說是全新的挑戰，希望將重點放在DeFi和未來的以太坊項目的監管指南上。Peirce稱，快速發展的DeFi導致了許多未解決的法律問題，給SEC帶來了新的挑戰。[2020/12/5 14:02:41]

Tags：THEENTINGANDTHERADIO幣Astra Guild Ventureskingshib幣前景GRAND價格

抹茶交易所