ING:SEC官員稱比特幣以太坊不是證券，提出6大判斷標準

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.

SEC對幣安和Coinbase的打擊導致市場崩盤:金色財經報道，加密市場因美國證券交易委員會（SEC）在周一對Binance發起執法行動，并于第二天對Coinbase提起訴訟——指控它們未注冊的證券交易所而導致市場大幅下跌。Binance的原生代幣BNB在本周下跌了23%，跌至236美元。ADA、SOL和MATIC的持有者遭受了超過30%的巨額損失。周價值下跌20%至30%的主要加密貨幣包括LTC、AVA、Shiba Inu（SHIB）、Uniswap（UNI）、Chainlink（LINK）和Cosmos Hub（ATOM）。[2023/6/11 21:29:29]

Paradigm希望美SEC撤回其“語無倫次”的交易所擬議定義:金色財經報道，加密貨幣風險公司Paradigm的特別顧問Rodrigo Seira和該公司的政策總監Justin Slaughter今天對證券交易委員會對交易所的重新定義發表了評論，聲稱它需要從頭開始。

Seira和Slaughter在聲明中寫道，“委員會達成有效的DeFi監管方法的唯一途徑是撤回其擬議的修正案，并從頭開始，在與DeFi行業進行真正的接觸、對其在這一領域的權力的法定限制進行清晰的評估，以及對國會實際授權其采取的替代方法的成本和效益進行全面分析之后，提出明確描述其擬議監管方法的擬議規則制定通知。如果不這樣做，就是讓一個受了傷的規則制定過程蹣跚前進，對委員會、加密貨幣行業和委員會負責保護的投資者不利。”[2023/6/9 21:25:40]

美國SEC對加密初創公司LBRY 2200萬美元的罰單降為11.1 萬美元:金色財經報道，在向新罕布什爾州地方法院提交的一份文件中，美國證券交易委員會以加密初創公司LBRY \"缺乏資金和瀕臨倒閉 \"為由，要求法院對其處以111614美元的罰款，而不是尋求原來的2200萬美元。

據悉，美國證券交易委員會于2021年3月首次對LBRY提起民事訴訟，指控該公司的LBC銷售是未注冊的證券發行。要求賠償2200萬美元，并要求法院命令LBRY停止任何進一步的LBC銷售。美國證券交易委員會在2022年11月贏得了此案，之前的法官也裁定LBC是一種證券。[2023/5/15 15:02:49]

Gary Gensler：SEC是技術中立而不是政策中立:金色財經報道，美國證券交易委員會主席Gary Gensler在首支比特幣ETF上市當日接受CNBC采訪時表示：“我認為官方部門應該是技術中立，而不是政策中立，因此SEC正在努力做的是，在現有權力內盡最大努力將項目納入到投資者保護范圍之中，比特幣期貨一直由我們的兄弟機構——美國期貨交易委員會監管，并且在芝加哥商品交易所上市，現在已經受監管了四年時間，已經被包裹在我們的管轄范圍之內，所以我們有能力把它納入到投資者保護范圍，盡管比特幣仍然是一個高度投機的資產類別。”[2021/10/20 20:41:27]

聲音 | 加密投資者：預計美國SEC將延遲對VanEck比特幣ETF的審批，對BTC的價格影響可能很小:據Ethereum World News消息，針對VanEck比特幣ETF，加密交易者和投資者Josh Rager仍然充滿信心，“回答ETF的問題。5月21日是最后期限。預期結果是延遲，對價格影響可能很小。即使有所延遲，BTC仍可能在未來幾周繼續攀升至新的年度高點。”在早前的一條推文中，他指出，即將到來的ETF決定肯定會對BTC價格產生嚴重影響，但他后來改變了論調。[2019/5/20]

Tags：THEENTINGANDHuobi EthereumSENT價格Defi Shopping StakeSANDWICH

PEPE