1. Home
  2. Howey Test

Howey Test

XRP ruling a ‘watershed moment’ but we’re not out of the woods yet — Lawyers

The crypto community has gathered to celebrate the recent ruling on XRP's securities status, but lawyers warn there's more to it than meets the eye.

Ripple Labs’ split-decision victory against the United States securities regulator is being seen as a significant blow to the regulator’s “war on crypto,” however, crypto lawyers warn it isn't a definitive victory for the industry or the firm y

In a landmark ruling on July 13, Judge Torres determined that XRP (XRP) is not a security — at least when sold to the general public.

The decision was met with a joyous uproar from XRP token holders and came with a massive surge in the token's price, with industry heavyweights lauding the decision as likely to aid crypto exchanges Coinbase and Binance in their respective lawsuits.

Luke Martin, the founder of crypto investment firm Venture Coinist noted that the “core component” of the United States Securities and Exchange Commission's (SEC) claim in its suits against Binance and Coinbase is that they offered the sale of unregistered securities on their platforms.

After losing on this matter in the case of XRP, Martin believes this will serve as a substantial blow to the SEC and its chair, Gary Gensler.

He called the decision “inconceivably bullish” for the industry:

Pro-XRP lawyer John Deaton shared a similar sentiment, stating that Coinbase was the other “winner” from the ruling and that altcoins would stand to benefit.

Similarly, Tyler Winklevoss, the CEO of cryptocurrency exchange Gemini, said the ruling “decimates” the SEC’s case against Coinbase. His twin brother, Cameron Winklevoss referred to the ruling as a “watershed moment” that will make it difficult for the SEC to claim authority over cryptocurrencies.

Coinbase, Kraken and iTrustShares have already relisted XRP on their respective platforms following the decision.

Words of caution

Despite the positive outcome for XRP, several digital asset lawyers warned against celebrating too soon.

Law firm partner Stephen Palley of Brown Rudnick noted that the summary judgement is only “partial” and that the ruling by Judge Torres isn’t legally binding — instead, it may only serve as persuasive commentary for future courts to follow if they so choose.

Palley and others noted that there’s also the chance the SEC may appeal the decision, which presents the possibility that a higher court overturns the rulings made by Judge Torres.

Related: Bad news for Ripple? LBRY judge passes ruling on if secondary crypto sales are securities

Ripple will also need to deal with the SEC’s claim that Ripple CEO Brad Garlinghouse and co-founder Chris Larsen “aided and abetted” the institutional sale of XRP, says U.S. lawyer James “MetaLawMan” Murphy.

The SEC alleged $728 million worth of XRP was sold from institutional sales.

United States-based commercial litigator Joe Carlasare ripped Garlinghouse on this point, asserting that Ripple “made $700 million in unlawful profit.”

This claim was set aside by Judge Torres, and will likely be contested at trial.

Magazine: Crypto regulation — Does SEC Chair Gary Gensler have the final say?

Things Are About To Get ‘Silly’ With Memecoins Again, Says Top Crypto Analyst – Here Are His Leading Picks

Ripple vs. SEC: Could newly released documents tip the balance?

The court case between SEC and Ripple Labs has been ongoing for nearly two and a half years, but a summary judgment ruling could be made any day.

The ongoing case of the Securities and Exchange Commission v Ripple Labs could have a significant impact on the future of cryptocurrency regulations. 

Ripple first popped up in 2012 with the promise of providing financial institutions and other entities with faster, more affordable clearance of cross-border fund transfers. To that end, Ripple created the XRP Ledger and a cryptocurrency called XRP (XRP) to function as its native coin and facilitate transactions.

On Dec. 22, 2020, the SEC sued Ripple, alleging that the firm selling XRP represented an unregistered securities offering.

Ripple co-founder and former CEO Chris Larsen and current CEO Brad Garlinghouse were also named in the SEC’s charges.

Most entities on the receiving end of SEC enforcement actions choose to settle. In this case, however, Ripple chose to fight the charges — at great expense — and take the matter to court.

Ripple argued that XRP does not satisfy the Howey test, which is used to determine whether an investment contract exists  — and, therefore, whether a transaction is a security transaction. It also said that if XRP was, in fact, a security, the SEC had failed to give it fair notice under U.S. securities laws.

Enter the Hinman documents

The “Hinman documents” refer to a 2018 speech given by former SEC Director William Hinman and documents associated with writing it.

In the speech, Hinman said that Ether (ETH) should not be considered a security given its decentralized nature, stating:

“Putting aside the fundraising that accompanied the creation of Ether, based on my understanding of the present state of Ether, the Ethereum network and its decentralized structure, current offers and sales of Ether are not securities transactions.”

This was considered a landmark speech, as it signaled to the crypto industry that it could be possible for cryptocurrencies to transition from securities when they are first created to commodities once they are sufficiently decentralized.

This could have an impact on Ripple’s fair notice defense, which comes into play if Judge Analisa Torres finds that Ripple did indeed sell unregistered securities.

Ripple requested the documents in discovery, and the request was granted on Oct. 21, 2022. While the documents could be used as a part of Ripple’s defense, the SEC has attempted to keep them sealed on multiple occasions, arguing that they are irrelevant to the court’s summary judgment decision.

But on May 16, Judge Torres ruled that the Hinman documents are “judicial documents” subject to a strong presumption of public access and denied the SEC’s motion to seal.

Notably, the court did not state whether the documents will be relied upon when it decides on the summary judgment motions of each party; but given the statements of those who have seen the documents, it appears likely they will negatively affect the public image of the SEC.

Additionally, there are questions about whether Hinman had a conflict of interest when making the speech, as he worked at a law firm that is a member of an Ethereum advocacy organization before and after working for the SEC— and the documents may provide additional details around this.

Speaking during a Twitter Space shortly after the ruling, lawyer and CryptoLaw founder John Deaton predicted the documents will be:

“Disturbing, but not as shocking as maybe people think it’s going to be because there’s been, quite frankly, such a big buildup for it. [...] I believe when these emails come out, that the conflicts of interest will be even more highlighted.”

What does the latest ruling mean for the case?

While it’s still too early to tell what the ultimate outcome of the case will be, the court also denied certain motions to seal from Ripple, which included references linking Ripple’s revenues with XRP sales and the amount of compensation offered to trading platforms, among others.

In the Twitter Space, Deaton highlighted these sections as evidence likely to hurt Ripple’s chances of a complete victory, adding:

“I think the chances of Ripple getting a complete victory are much slimmer after reading this than I felt before. I still don’t think the SEC is getting a complete victory either.”

Deaton theorized that the courts could decide to fine Ripple for its early sales of XRP — relating to the initial coin offering and other transactions aimed at boosting the network — but that secondary sales of XRP and the coin itself are not securities.

Deaton’s thoughts on the subject were given further credibility when former SEC securities lawyer Marc Fagel added his voice to the Twitter Space, saying that he generally agreed with everything that had been said but that the SEC’s suit was worded in a way that focused on the tokens issued by Ripple and not secondary market transactions.

Fagel added that he thought Torres “would be overstepping to make a ruling on secondary sales,” but he believed they were helpful in the SEC’s case, as they illustrate how a secondary market would not have been created without Ripple issuing securities while promoting the network.

Could the case finally be reaching its conclusion?

In a May 17 Twitter thread, prominent pro-crypto lawyer Fred Rispoli suggested that the summary judgment ruling is already written and could be issued “any day now,” while also agreeing that a split decision was the most likely.

Deaton noted during the Twitter Space that he believes Judge Torres knows how she will rule but added that guessing how much is written “in its final form” would be pure speculation.

He also agreed that the decision could come down at any time, but he added that it could take another month or longer.

Magazine: NFT Creator: Top 10 crypto artist Trevor Jones on being rich, rekt and rich again

Things Are About To Get ‘Silly’ With Memecoins Again, Says Top Crypto Analyst – Here Are His Leading Picks

Gary Gensler links crypto with cash in viral 2018 video — Crypto Twitter reacts

The 2018 MIT professor Gary Gensler didn’t think most ICOs triggered U.S. securities laws.

The crypto community is calling out the hypocrisy of Gary Gensler, the head of the United States securities regulator, after a 2018 video emerged of him stating that cryptocurrencies are on par with commodities or cash and are not securities.

The video came from a “Blockchain and Money” class in the Fall Semester of 2018 taught by Gensler, a former professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) before he became chair of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).

On the topic of initial coin offerings (ICOs), Gensler said that "three-quarters of the market are not ICOs or not what would be called securities" and named the U.S., Canadian and Taiwanese markets as the "three jurisdictions that follow something similar to the Howey Test."

"Three-quarters of the market is non-securities, it's just a commodity, cash,crypto,” Gensler then said.

While Gensler briefly acknowledged that ICOs may spark a securities debate, he concluded that “three-quarters of the market is not particularly relevant as a legal matter.”

Several members of the crypto community were stunned by Gensler’s remarks.

Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong commented a mere “Wow” in response to an April 26 Twitter post shared by cryptocurrency researcher “zk-SHARK.”

Erik Voorhees, the founder of crypto trading platform ShapeShift asked "When does someone get arrested for fraud?" in an April 25 Twitter post to his 658,900 followers.

Farokh Sarmad, the founder of Web3 podcast Rug Radio called Gensler “disgusting” in a tweet to his 346,200 followers, while a systems engineer, named “JD” called on the SEC Chair to provide an explanation behind the change in opinion.

Not everyone saw eye to eye though.

Related: Gary Gensler refuses to answer if ETH is a security: SEC hearing

U.S. lawyer Preston Byrne explained that professors and law enforcers work in “different capacities” and Gensler shouldn’t be held to the same views he had back then.

Another U.S. lawyer, Jonathan Schmalfeld, who specializes in blockchain technology, challenged Byrne’s opinion by stating that Gensler’s interpretation of the Howey Test shouldn’t change by virtue of his capacity. The response prompted a second explanation from Byrne:

“I mean when I talk with clients about this stuff there are three answers, what I think the law is, how I think enforcers will interpret it, and what the law ought to be. Right now he’s limited to giving only one of those answers by virtue of his position.”

Magazine: Crypto regulation — Does SEC Chair Gary Gensler have the final say?

Things Are About To Get ‘Silly’ With Memecoins Again, Says Top Crypto Analyst – Here Are His Leading Picks

Coinbase wins $470K restitution in insider trading case

The brother of a former Coinbase employee allegedly profited from an insider trading scheme and now has 20 years to repay the funds.

The brother of a former Coinbase employee has agreed to pay the cryptocurrency exchange nearly $470,000 for his role in an insider trading scheme.

According to a New York District Court filing signed on April 6 and made public on April 10, Nikhil Wahi — brother of former Coinbase product manager Ishan Wahi — will be required to begin making restitution payments while serving time in prison in what is believed to be the first insider trading case involving crypto.

The amount must be paid in full within 20 years of Nikhil’s release from prison and represents the amount Coinbase spent on legal services relating to the Department of Justice’s investigation.

In September 2022 Nikhil pleaded guilty to initiating trades based on confidential information obtained from his brother and is currently serving 10 months in prison for wire fraud conspiracy charges after being sentenced on Jan. 10.

Because of his position at Coinbase, prosecutors alleged Ishan knew when the exchange would be listing new cryptocurrencies and informed his brother Nikhil and an associate of theirs, Sameer Ramani, prior to the asset listings being publicly announced.

The prices of the listed cryptocurrencies generally rose after their listing, netting Nikhil $892,500 in profit, according to prosecutors. As part of his sentencing, Nikhil was required to forfeit these funds to the United States government.

Related: Coinbase head of exchange departs and plans to start new crypto project: Report

In a separate civil case, Coinbase defended the brothers and Ramani after the trio was sued by the Securities and Exchange Commission for violating antifraud provisions of U.S. securities laws.

In a March 13 amicus brief, Coinbase said that it condemns the defendants’ conduct but was supportive of a motion to dismiss the case as it argued the SEC had no jurisdiction to file a lawsuit given the tokens in question do not pass the Howey test — a U.S. legal doctrine that evaluates whether an asset is a security.

The SEC noted in an April 3 filing that it had reached an “agreement in principle” with Ishan to resolve the SEC’s claims and was also in “good faith discussions” with Nikhil.

Hodler's Digest, April 2-8: BTC white paper hidden on macOS, Binance loses AUS license and DOGE news

Things Are About To Get ‘Silly’ With Memecoins Again, Says Top Crypto Analyst – Here Are His Leading Picks

Lawyer lays out his reasoning on why XRP is not a security

Lawyer Jeremy Hogan believes the United States Securites and Exchange Commission has failed to legally demonstrate that XRP is a security.

Ripple’s XRP (XRP) is not a security because it does not fit the definition of an “investment contract,” the “only” legislative definition that it could “possibly” fit, according to Jeremy Hogan, a partner at the law firm of Hogan & Hogan.

In a series of tweets on April 9, Hogan explained that, in his opinion, XRP could only be considered a security under the definition of an "investment contract," as it doesn't fit the other definitions of a security such as stocks or bonds.

Hogan argues, however, that the United States Securities and Exchange Commission has not demonstrated an implied or explicit investment contract in its suit against Ripple.

"Instead it argues that the purchase agreement is all that is required — and that is all it proves," Hogan stated.

"But that argument tears the 'investment' from the 'contract' as a simple purchase, without more, [there] cannot be an 'investment contract,' it is just an investment (like buying an ounce of gold) as there is no obligation for Ripple to do anything except transfer the asset," he added.

The SEC initiated a lawsuit in December 2020, claiming that Ripple illegally sold its XRP token as an unregistered security.

Ripple has long disputed the claim, arguing that it doesn't constitute an investment contract under the Howey test — a legal test used to determine if a transaction qualifies as an investment contract. It was established in 1946 by the U.S. Supreme Court in the SEC v. W.J. case.

Hogan further argues that all of the "blue sky" cases, which the Howey case relies on for defining an "investment contract," involved some form of a contract regarding the investment.

Related: Ripple CEO: XRP lawsuit resolved by June, SEC conduct ‘embarrassing’

"Indeed, how can a person 'reasonably rely' on an offeror to make them a profit when they have zero legal recourse when that offeror fails to come through?" he said.

"They cannot. Even the oft-quoted four-part test implies that a ‘contract’ of some sort is required."

Hogan says the crux of the issue is not whether Ripple used money from the sale of XRP to fund its business, but if the SEC has proven that there was either an implied or explicit "contract" between Ripple and XRP purchasers relating to their "investment."

"There was no such contract," Hogan claimed.

Magazine: Bitcoin in Senegal: Why is this African country using BTC?

Things Are About To Get ‘Silly’ With Memecoins Again, Says Top Crypto Analyst – Here Are His Leading Picks

What are the Howey test and its implications for cryptocurrency?

The Howey test’s impact on cryptocurrency, explained — legal implications, compliance requirements and more.

What is the Howey test?

The Howey test is a legal test used in the United States to determine whether a transaction qualifies as an investment contract and, thus, is considered a security under federal law. The test was established by the U.S. Supreme Court in SEC v. W.J. Howey Co. (1946), and it has since been applied in numerous cases to determine whether various financial arrangements and offerings constitute securities. 

According to the Howey test, a transaction must contain an investment of funds in a group venture with the expectation that all gains will come from group efforts. A transaction is deemed a security if it satisfies these requirements, in which case it is subject to federal securities laws and regulations.

Understanding the criteria for a security

The test involves three key criteria that must be met in order for a transaction to qualify as a security, as discussed below:

The first criterion is a financial investment, which means that participants in the transaction must be risking their own money. This comprises both financial and in-kind investments.

The second requirement is a shared enterprise, which denotes that the financial success of the investors is somehow connected. This can be proven by providing evidence of the investors’ resource pooling or reliance on a third party to manage their investments.

The third criterion is an expectation of profits solely from the efforts of others, which means that the investors are relying on someone else to generate a return on their investment. This could include, for example, profits generated by a third-party manager or profits generated by the efforts of a particular group or organization.

The implications of the Howey test for cryptocurrency: Is it a security or not?

The implications of the Howey test for cryptocurrency are significant, as the test provides a framework for determining whether a particular cryptocurrency offering should be classified as a security under U.S. law. If a cryptocurrency offering meets the criteria outlined in the Howey test, it may be considered a security and subject to federal securities laws.

This has important ramifications for crypto businesses and investors since breaking federal securities laws can result in penalties, legal action and reputational harm to the business. To make sure they are in compliance with federal securities laws, cryptocurrency companies should carefully consider the Howey test before creating their offerings.

Related: Crypto and securities: New interpretation of US Howey test gaining ground

Tokens that do not pass the Howey test are considered utility tokens that provide investors with access to a future product or service or can be redeemed for discounted fees. While utility tokens are typically not considered securities, the SEC has suggested that the presence of a utility token framework does not necessarily mean that a project is exempt from being classified as a security.

Ultimately, the implications of the Howey test for cryptocurrency will depend on how regulators choose to apply the test in practice and how cryptocurrency companies choose to structure their offerings to comply with federal securities law.

Compliance with federal securities laws: What cryptocurrency companies need to know

Cryptocurrency companies need to be aware of the federal securities laws in the United States to ensure compliance with them. Here are some key things to keep in mind:

  • Securities laws apply to cryptocurrencies: Several cryptocurrencies are seen as securities by the Securities and Exchange Commission. This implies that cryptocurrency businesses must abide by federal securities laws, including the requirements for registration and disclosure.
  • Token offerings may be subject to securities laws: It can count as a securities offering if a cryptocurrency company sells tokens to the general public in return for cash or other assets. As a result, the business would have to adhere to securities rules, which would include registering the offering with the SEC.
  • The use of funds must be disclosed: A cryptocurrency company must state its financial goals when raising money through a securities offering. The business must also keep investors informed about how the money is being used.
  • Trading platforms may be subject to securities laws: Exchanges for securities may include cryptocurrency trading platforms that let users purchase and sell tokens. If so, the platform would have to file an SEC registration form and adhere to other securities regulations.
  • Penalties for non-compliance can be severe: Significant penalties may be imposed for non-compliance: A cryptocurrency corporation might incur severe consequences, such as fines and legal action if it violates federal securities regulations.

Therefore, cryptocurrency companies need to be aware of and comply with federal securities laws in the United States. This includes understanding whether their tokens are considered securities, disclosing the use of funds, and complying with registration and disclosure requirements.

Things Are About To Get ‘Silly’ With Memecoins Again, Says Top Crypto Analyst – Here Are His Leading Picks

‘It would be absurd’ for a US court to rule private NFTs as securities: Lawyer

The comments from the hosts of lawyers comes as Judge Victor Marreo said that Dapper Labs’ NBA Top Shot Moments NFT may constitute a security.

Blockchain Association’s chief legal officer says “it would be absurd” for a United States court to rule that digital assets on private blockchains are securities, following a federal judge's decision to allow a lawsuit against Dapper Labs's NBA Top Shots NFTs to play out

U.S. attorney Jake Chervinsky made the comment after federal judge Victor Marreo denied a motion to dismiss a 2021 lawsuit that accused Dapper Labs of selling nonfungible tokens (NFTs) as unregistered securities.

Chervinsky was among a host of lawyers on Twitter to reiterate that the judge’s denial of the motion does not mean a ruling has been made on the lawsuit, only that it was “facially plausible.”

“The judge didn't decide anything. He allowed the case to proceed past a motion to dismiss because the securities claims were at least ‘plausible,’ an extremely low bar and not a final ruling at all,” he explained.

“This dispute aside, it would be absurd if all valuable digital assets stored on centralized databases were securities.”

“This would turn every major video game developer, event ticketing platform, travel rewards program, etc. into a public reporting company regulated by the SEC,” he explained.

Another U.S. lawyer, Jesse Hynes, also weighed in on the motion in a Feb. 22 Twitter post, noting that motions to dismiss are “rarely ever successful” because the plaintiff only needs to plead enough evidence for the case to proceed.

“The judge ruled in the Dapper case that the plaintiff pled enough evidence that IF ALL THE ALLEGATIONS ARE TRUE, that there is a securities violation.”

“Now we go into discovery to learn what the real facts are. Once that is done Dapper will likely file for a motion for Summary Judgment,” the lawyer added.

Meanwhile, another U.S. lawyer, James Murphy — known as “MetaLawMan” — noted that the allegations that Dapper Labs issued the NBA Top Shot Moments NFT on a privately-run blockchain were a “fundamental” factor behind the court’s decision to reject the motion to dismiss.

This prompted MetaLawMan to suggest that this “could be considered a net positive” for Ripple in its own case against the U.S. Securities Exchange Commission (SEC), because XRP is issued on a public blockchain.

Related: Dapper Labs suspends Russian accounts after new EU sanctions

The class action lawsuit against Dapper Labs was filed in May 2021 by plaintiff Jeeun Friel, who claimed that Dapper Labs was selling NFTs as unregistered securities.

Judge Marreo denied the motion to dismiss the lawsuit on Feb. 22. He said that the particular scheme by which Dapper Labs offers the Moments NFT possibly creates a sufficient legal relationship between investors and themselves, which satisfies the investment contract criteria under the Howey Test.

However, it's unlikely the ultimate ruling of this case would establish a precedent for NFTs, as Judge Marreo said that not all NFTs will constitute securities and that each case will need to be assessed on a case-by-case basis.

Shortly after the dismissal, the Dapper Labs-issued FLOW token fell 6.4% from $1.24 to $1.16 in 15 minutes. However the FLOW token has since rebounded at $1.29, according to CoinGecko.

Things Are About To Get ‘Silly’ With Memecoins Again, Says Top Crypto Analyst – Here Are His Leading Picks

Federal Judge Rules NBA Top Shot NFTs May Be Considered Unregistered Securities

Federal Judge Rules NBA Top Shot NFTs May Be Considered Unregistered SecuritiesA federal judge, Victor Marrero, ruled on Wednesday that the NBA Top Shot non-fungible tokens (NFTs) issued by Dapper Labs may meet the requirements to be considered an unregistered security. The case arose in 2021 when an NBA Top Shot collector sued Dapper Labs, claiming that the NBA Top Shot NFTs, known as “Moments” issued […]

Things Are About To Get ‘Silly’ With Memecoins Again, Says Top Crypto Analyst – Here Are His Leading Picks

Terra lawsuit a ‘roadmap’ to attack other stablecoins: Delphi Labs

Delphi Lab's general counsel said the SEC was being "more thorough than usual" in its lawsuit against Terraform Labs and its co-founder Do Kwon.

The United States Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC's) lawsuit against Terraform Labs and its co-founder Do Kwon could be seen as an SEC “roadmap” to taking down other stablecoins, according to a lawyer.

Gabriel Shapiro, general counsel at investment firm Delphi Labs, explained to his 33,800 Twitter followers on Feb. 16 that the SEC’s arguments in its complaint against Kwon and Terraform were “more thorough than usual.”

Shapiro’s analysis follows the SEC’s Feb. 16 lawsuit against Kwon and Terraform alleging they “orchestrat[ed] a multi-billion dollar crypto asset securities fraud involving an algorithmic stablecoin and other crypto asset securities.”

Shapiro suggested the case could serve as a “roadmap” for how the regulator may sue other stablecoin issuers in the future. He acknowledged the SEC made the case that Terra’s algorithmic stablecoin, TerraClassicUSD (USTC), constitutes a security:

“[The SEC] will allege that integration, promotion, marketing, commercial deals etc building the stablecoin ecosystems are ‘efforts of others’ that are ‘reasonably expected’ and can lead to profits in connection with the stables.”

He pointed out the SEC applied the four prongs of the Howey Test to argue that USTC, Terra Luna Classic (LUNC) — renamed from Terra (LUNA) — and Wrapped LUNA (wLUNA) all constituted securities under U.S. securities laws.

Delphi Labs General Counsel Gabriel Shapiro’s take on the SEC’s lawsuit against Terraform Labs and its CEO Do Kwon. Source: Twitter.

The SEC also argued that Terraform Labs breached U.S. securities laws by launching the Mirror Protocol, which allowed its users to create what Terraform called an “mAsset,” a crypto version of an asset that “mirrors” the price behavior of other assets such as stocks.

The regulator claimed Terraform Labs committed this securities-based swap through the MIR token — which Shapiro believes to be a “first” of all the cryptocurrency-related lawsuits filed by the SEC.

Shapiro noted the SEC’s claim that wLUNA constituted a “receipt” for a security was another “first.”

Delphi Labs General Counsel Gabriel Shapiro’s analysis on the SEC’s lawsuit filing against Terraform Labs and its CEO Do Kwon. Source: Twitter.

Ryan Sean Adams, the host of the crypto-oriented podcast Bankless, made a similar argument to his 221,300 Twitter followers on Feb. 16, noting that a legal victory against Terraform Labs would make it easier to go after other stablecoin issuers.

The Terra-linked tokens infamously crashed in May, 2022, which was in part triggered when USTC lost its peg to the U.S. dollar. As LUNC was closely linked to USTC, its price fell by virtually 100% and triggered a wider downturn in the crypto markets, wiping out approximately $40 billion from the crypto markets.

Related: Why the SEC wants to ban crypto staking and stablecoins under scrutiny — Watch The Market Report live

Kwon maintains that he is not “on the run,” and is believed to be residing in Serbia according to South Korean officials — who issued a warrant for his arrest.

Earlier in February, two South Korean prosecutors flew to the Balkan state to find Kwon, however, the search attempt was unsuccessful.

Cointelegraph contacted Terraform Labs for comment on the lawsuit but no immediate response was received.

Things Are About To Get ‘Silly’ With Memecoins Again, Says Top Crypto Analyst – Here Are His Leading Picks

Are stablecoins securities? Well, it’s not so simple, say lawyers

One lawyer said that while stablecoins are meant to be stable, buyers may possibly profit from a range of arbitrage, hedging, and staking opportunities.

Recently reported planned enforcement action against Paxos by the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) over Binance USD (BUSD) has many in the community questioning how the regulator could see a stablecoin as a security.

Blockchain lawyers told Cointelegraph that while the answer isn't black and white, there exists an argument for it if the stablecoin was issued out in the expectation of profits or are derivatives of securities.

A report from the Wall Street Journal on Feb. 12 revealed that the SEC is planning to sue Paxos Trust Company in relation to its issuance of Binance USD, a stablecoin it created in partnership with Binance in 2019. Within the notice, the SEC reportedly alleges that BUSD is an unregistered security.

Senior Lecturer Dr. Aaron Lane of RMIT’s Blockchain Innovation Hub told Cointelegraph that while the SEC may claim these stablecoins to be securities, that proposition hasn’t been conclusively tested by the U.S. Courts:

“With stablecoins, a particularly contentious issue will be whether the investment in the stablecoin led a person to an expectation of profit (the ‘third arm’ of the Howey test).”

“On a narrow view, the whole idea of the stablecoin is that it is stable. On a broader view, it could be argued that arbitrage, hedging, and staking opportunities provide an expectation of profit,” he said.

Lane also explained that a stablecoin may fall under U.S. securities laws in the event that it is found to be a derivative of a security.

This is something that SEC Chairman Gary Gensler emphasized strongly in July 2021 in a speech to the American Bar Association Derivative and Futures Law Committee:

“Make no mistake: It doesn’t matter whether it’s a stock token, a stable value token backed by securities, or any other virtual product that provides synthetic exposure to underlying securities.”

“These platforms — whether in the decentralized or centralized finance space — are implicated by the securities laws and must work within our securities regime,” he said at the time.

However Lane stressed that ultimately each case “will turn on its own facts,” particularly when adjudicating on an algorithmic stablecoin as opposed to a crypto or fiat-collateralized one.

A recent post by Quinn Emanuel Trial Lawyers has also approached the subject, explaining that in order to “ramp up” stablecoins to a “stable value,” they may sometimes be offered on discounted prior to sufficiently stabilizing.

“These sales may support an argument that initial purchasers, despite formal disclaimers by issuers and purchasers alike, buy with the intent for resale following stabilization at the higher price,” it wrote.

Are Stablecoins Securities? A legal analysis from Quinn Emanuel Trial Lawyers. Source. Quinn Emanuel.

But while stablecoin issuers may resort to the courts to decide the dispute, many believe the SEC’s “regulation by enforcement” approach is simply uncalled for.

Digital assets lawyer and partner Michael Bacina of Piper Alderman told Cointelegraph that the SEC should instead provide “sensible guidance” to help the industry players who are seeking to be legally compliant:

“Regulation by enforcement is an inefficient way of meeting policy outcomes, as SEC Commissioner Peirce has recently observed in her blistering dissent in relation to the Kraken prosecution. When a rapidly growing industry doesn’t fit the existing regulatory framework and has been seeking clear pathways to compliance, then engagement and sensible guidance is a far superior approach than resorting to lawsuits.”

Cinneamhain Ventures partner Adam Cochran gave another view to his 181,000 Twitter followers on Feb. 13, noting that the SEC can sue any company that issues financial assets under the much broader Securities Act of 1933:

The digital asset investor then explained that the SEC isn’t restricted to the Howey Test:

“The fact that these assets hold underlying treasuries, makes them a lot like a money market fund, exposing holders to a security, even if they don't earn from it. Making an argument (not one I agree with, but a reasonable enough one) that they can be a security.”

“Worth fighting tooth and nail, but everyone who is shrugging this off as "lol the SEC got it wrong, this doesn't pass the Howey test" needs to re-eval. The SEC, believe it or not, has knowledgeable securities counsel,” he added.

Related: SEC chair compares stablecoins to casino poker chips

The latest reported planned action from the SEC comes after reports emerged on Feb. 10 that Paxos Trust was being investigated by the New York Department of Financial Services for an unconfirmed reason.

Commenting on the initial reports, a spokesperson for Binance said BUSD is a "Paxos issued and owned product" with Binance licensing its brand to the firm for use with BUSD. It added Paxos is regulated by the New York Department of Financial Services (NYDFS) and that BUSD is a "1 to 1 backed stablecoin."

"Stablecoins are a critical safety net for investors seeking refuge from volatile markets and limiting their access would directly harm millions of people across the globe," the spokesperson added. "We will continue to monitor the situation. Our global users have a wide array of stablecoins available to them.”

Things Are About To Get ‘Silly’ With Memecoins Again, Says Top Crypto Analyst – Here Are His Leading Picks