Keyword: digital tokens

5 Things to Know About Token Warrants

, , and

Venture capital investors in blockchain companies often require formal rights to receive tokens or other digital assets created by those companies. Typically, these rights are provided through an instrument called a “token warrant.” While token warrants are most frequently issued in priced rounds, they have become increasingly prevalent in connection with SAFE or other convertible rounds. Here are five things that any blockchain company or investor should know when evaluating token warrants:

  1. Token Warrants Can Confer Broad or Narrow Rights. Companies and investors should pay close attention to the types of tokens that warrants entitle their holders to acquire. Token warrants may provide holders with rights to receive one specific type of token only, such as the first governance token issued by a company. However, token warrants typically provide holders with rights to receive any future tokens created or issued by a company or its affiliates – as well as any future tokens issued by an acquiror of the company’s intellectual property or any entity established by or on behalf of the company to issue tokens or operate a blockchain-based protocol or other technology associated with the tokens. Token warrants may also provide holders with rights to receive tokens created or issued by the company’s founders.
  2. Exclusions May Apply. Token warrants often outline specific types of tokens that are not acquirable under the terms of the warrant. Often known as Excluded Tokens, they generally include tokens that are generated pursuant to mining, staking, or reward systems. Depending on the applicable company’s business, Excluded Tokens may also include non-fungible tokens, stablecoins, or certain tokens issued in the ordinary course of business. Typically, the company and its investors will negotiate what is considered an Excluded Token based on the company’s business model.
  3. The Number of Tokens Issuable to Holders Can Be Calculated Several Ways. Token warrants specify the share of tokens holders can acquire under the warrant. This typically depends on three key variables:
    • The set of tokens from which the holder’s share is calculated: The holder’s share may be calculated from the number of tokens minted, from the number of tokens minted and issued to the company’s “insiders,” which includes the company’s stockholders and holders of its convertible or exercisable securities, or otherwise. In the “insider” structure, the holder would not be entitled to any share of tokens that are reserved for community members or other non-“insiders.” In addition, token warrants may provide holders with rights to tokens issued in inflationary events or in connection with other increases in the token supply.
    • How to calculate the holder’s share: The holder’s share may be a hard-coded percentage, but it is more typically based on the holder’s fully diluted ownership of the company. In the latter structure, the holder’s share will typically equal its fully diluted ownership as a percentage of the total cap table. But investors may negotiate a “super” pro rata share, which is a multiple (e.g. 1.25x, 1.5x) of the investor’s fully diluted ownership.
    • When to calculate it: The time at which a holder’s share is calculated can make a difference in how many tokens the holder has a right to acquire. For example, the holder’s share may be calculated as of the date of warrant issuance, the date of the applicable token launch, or the date the warrant is exercised.
  4. “Lockup” Provisions Govern the Transferability of Tokens. Token warrants typically specify the “lockup” restrictions that will prevent holders from transferring tokens acquired under the warrant for certain periods. Lockup schedules in token warrants may include provisions that prohibit any transfers of tokens for one year after the tokens are acquired, release some tokens from lockup at the one-year mark, and then release the balance over successive monthly increments. For example, a lockup schedule may prohibit 100% of the tokens from being transferred until the one-year anniversary of the exercise date, and then permit the transfer of 50% of the tokens on the one-year anniversary and 1/24th, 1/36th or 1/48th of remaining tokens over the next two to four years. A common provision requires an early release of the lockup provision if certain “insiders” (particularly founders or board members) have a less stringent lockup period. Token warrants may also provide the token issuer with rights to impose additional transfer restrictions on tokens in light of regulatory requirements or in connection with centralized exchange listing requirements.
  5. Beware of Token Warrants that Compensate Service Providers. Token warrants are not ideal instruments for compensating a company’s service providers (e.g. employees, contractors, advisors). The Internal Revenue Code subjects deferred compensation – including token warrants – to a variety of complex and generally unfavorable tax, vesting and exercise rules. Therefore, companies should generally limit issuing token warrants to investors.

2022 Is the Year of Sweeping Changes for Cryptocurrency and Other Digital Asset Transfers

What to look out for in the proposed new Chapter 12 of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC)

The world of cryptocurrencies and other forms of digital assets (such as non-fungible tokens) is exploding. While Bitcoin is the largest and best-known cryptocurrency in the global economy, it is far from the only one. The combined total value of Bitcoin, Litecoin, Monero, Ethereum, and all the other significant cryptocurrencies exceeds $2.4 trillion. In 2021, El Salvador enacted legislation to recognize Bitcoin as a medium of exchange. Other countries are also considering adopting similar legislation. Some countries even contemplate adopting their own blockchain-based currency as a form of legal tender.

Questions have emerged among regulators and market participants whether Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies constitute “money” and how to perfect a security interest in such virtual currency (to ensure that it can’t be claimed by another party). Other questions relate to how interests in cryptocurrencies, NFTs, and other digital assets can be transferred or monetized and how purchasers of digital assets can be protected from adverse claims.

2022 will bring major changes to commercial law in a sweeping mission to answer some of these questions and to facilitate transactions in these emerging technologies. The proposed new Chapter 12 of the UCC will govern essentially any transfer (whether intended as a sale or a financing) of virtual currencies, NFTs, and other digital assets. These provisions will affect cryptocurrency startups and companies as they purchase and sell cryptocurrency, as well as financial institutions and fintech companies interested in financing cryptoassets and investment banks underwriting issuances of securities underpinned by crypto assets.

2021 and Earlier

By current definition, Bitcoin is not money because it is not a medium of exchange created, authorized, or adopted by a domestic or foreign government, or by an intergovernmental organization or by an agreement between two or more countries. Moreover, since Bitcoin, NFTs, and other digital assets are intangible and therefore not capable of possession, under the UCC as it is currently in effect, a security interest in them can currently only be perfected (as a general intangible) by the filing of a financing statement describing the digital asset. Under the UCC as it is currently in effect, it is uncertain that control of the digital wallet for a digital asset is sufficient to perfect a security interest.

Nevertheless, some practitioners have proposed a practical “workaround” to perfect a security interest in Bitcoin by “control” if the Bitcoin is held in a “securities account,” and the secured party has control over the financial assets (including the Bitcoin) held in the securities account. In this manner, a secured party will have control if the secured party, the debtor, and a securities intermediary (holding the account in which the Bitcoin is held) enter into an agreement in which the securities intermediary agrees to comply with the instructions originated by the secured party directing disposition of the funds and other property in the account without consent by the debtor. The securities intermediary must be a person, including a financial institution, custodian, or broker that in the ordinary course of its business maintains securities accounts for others and is acting in that capacity. The workaround provides the secured party with the amount of control that, as a practical matter, it would need to foreclose upon, and exercise its remedies with regard to the digital asset, but that control itself would not necessarily perfect the secured party’s security interest in the digital asset under the current UCC.

What is New

The proposed new Chapter 12 to the UCC will:

  1. address the transfer of digital assets/virtual currencies and also provide conforming changes to Article 9 of the UCC to address secured transactions in these assets
    • Chapter 12 is designed to govern the transfer (both outright and for security) of interests in some, but not all, electronic records (adopting a new term “controllable electronic records”) (e.g., Bitcoin/NFTs)
  2. facilitate secured lending against digital assets (e.g., virtual currency, NFTs, and electronic fiat money (i.e., central bank digital currency))
  3. provide protections for certain qualifying purchasers to take interests in virtual currency and digital assets free of conflicting property claims
  4. provide rules regarding the assignment of controllable accounts and controllable payment intangibles
  5. provide other changes including updates to the definition of chattel paper and revisions to the requirements for the transfer and perfection of security interest in chattel paper, and revisions to some rules regarding negotiable instruments and payment systems

How Will These Changes Affect Different Players in the Industry

Blockchain and Cryptocurrency Startups

Chapter 12 will impact blockchain and cryptocurrency startups and companies involved in purchasing, selling, and financing virtual currencies, NFTs, and other digital assets. Chapter 12 will govern the transfer of property rights in intangible digital assets (defined as “controllable electronic records”) that can be subjected to control. Control is the functional equivalent of “possession” of the digital asset. Companies are currently using digital assets in exchange for payment, rights to receive services, for goods or interests in personal or real property. Chapter 12 will reduce the risks among claimants to, and specify the rights in, the digital assets that the purchaser acquires and to facilitate these transactions.

Financial Institutions

Financial institutions, banks, and other lenders who finance virtual currencies and other digital assets will find it easier to arrange secured lending transactions under Chapter 12 (and conforming changes under UCC Chapter 9). A lender will have a perfected security interest if the lender has “control” over the digital asset (or the system on which the digital asset is recorded). In addition, financial institutions, lenders, and other secured parties should consider amending existing security documents. Many existing revolving credit facilities are secured by blanket or broad liens on substantially all assets of the debtor, including its general intangibles. Lenders may want to amend their security documents to provide for a security interest in virtual currencies and other digital assets to provide (a) an express grant of a security interest in “controllable electronic records”, “controllable accounts” and “controllable payment intangibles” and (b) for the lenders to obtain control over controllable electronic records, controllable accounts, and controllable payment intangibles. The amendment will mitigate the risk that the lender will lose its priority position if another party obtains control over the controllable electronic records, controllable accounts and controllable payment intangibles, and the lender has only perfected by filing a financing statement.

Investment Banks

Many securities are issued secured by rights to payment arising from the sale of amounts due under credit cards, accounts, instruments, student loans, and other lines of credit. Underwriters and investors in structured finance and securitization transactions involved in assignment of accounts and payment intangibles will want to review the Chapter 12 provisions regarding the payment obligations and conditions for discharge of obligors on digital assets (controllable accounts and controllable payment obligations). Underwriters and investors should also review the ability under Chapter 12 of a purchaser to acquire special protection as a good faith purchaser for value (a qualifying purchaser) of a controllable electronic record, controllable account and controllable payment intangible.

Parties in Equipment Finance/Lease Transactions

Parties involved in equipment finance/lease finance transactions, underwriters and investors (such as auto finance and auto securitization transactions) will want to review the other proposed changes to UCC Article 9, including the proposed changes to chattel paper. For example, the definition has been amended to provide that chattel paper is a monetary obligation that is either secured by specific goods (such as a car or furniture) or arises in connection with a lease of specific goods (such as a car or furniture). The rule regarding perfection of a security interest in chattel paper has also been revised. Under the old rule—if you had tangible chattel paper (evidenced by writing), the secured party was required to have possession of the writing, and there was confusion if there were multiple copies or what constituted a writing. If electronic chattel paper, the secured party was required to have control of the single authoritative copy, and there was confusion of what it meant to have a single authoritative copy. Under the new rule, the secured party:

  1. Can perfect its security interest by taking possession of all tangible authoritative copies and obtaining control of all electronic authoritative copies.
  2. The secured party can produce the copies in its possession and provide evidence that these are the authoritative copies.
    • Need not prove that no other tangible authoritative copies exist.
  3. For electronic chattel paper, the secured party must:
    • be able to identify each electronic copy of electronic chattel paper as authoritative or nonauthoritative,
    • identify the secured party as the assignee of each authoritative copy,
    • have the exclusive power to prevent others from adding or changing an identified assignee and to transfer control of the authoritative copies.

What’s Excluded

UCC Chapter 12 is limited in scope—it only applies to controllable electronic records (i.e., a virtual currency and other digital asset) and payment rights that are evidenced by a controllable electronic record. Chapter 12 does not address a number of federal, state, and local laws and regulatory issues that will undoubtedly interplay with these emerging technologies, including anticipated new regulations from regulators like the SEC, OCC, and the IRS. These laws and regulations are rapidly changing. We will be providing periodic updates.

Also Excluded:

  • Who has title to or rights in the digital assets
  • Federal and state securities, data privacy, cybersecurity, and other regulation
  • Banking laws
  • Taxation of digital assets
  • Anti-money laundering laws
  • Transferable records under UETA or E-SIGN

Schedule for Approval of Changes

Date Event
January 2022 Drafting committee submits draft proposed recommendations to ALI counsel
May 2022 ALI approval of draft proposed recommendations
July 2022 Uniform Law Commission approves proposed recommendations
Post-July 2022 Submission to states for adoption of proposed recommendations

Industry Comments

The drafting committee of Chapter 12 and the conforming changes to the other changes to the UCC are in the process of meeting with industry groups and other stakeholders to continue advising industry leaders and other stakeholders regarding these proposed changes. The drafting committee is continuing to work on finalizing the proposed recommendations prior to the May 2022 meeting. We would be happy to meet with you to discuss any comments or concerns that you may have with the proposed changes.

The SEC Sends a Telegram to European Token Offerings: Avoid the U.S.

On March 24, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) a preliminary injunction preventing Telegram from distributing $1.7 billion of its “Gram” digital tokens to investors. By way of background: According to Court filings, during the first quarter of 2018, Telegram sold purchase contracts to 175 initial purchasers entitling them to receive Grams when Telegram launched its proprietary blockchain platform. Telegram claimed an exemption from SEC registration as a U.S. private placement (i.e., transactions not involving security sales to the public). Some initial purchasers were locked up from reselling the Grams for brief periods following receipt, but otherwise were unrestricted in their ability to resell Grams to anyone on Telegram’s blockchain platform.

It’s premature to cite the Court’s grant of a preliminary injunction as gospel, as the Court’s findings are, by their nature, preliminary and subject to appeal. In granting an injunction, the Court accepted the SEC’s argument that the SEC was likely to succeed in demonstrating a securities laws violation following a trial, and that, if the Gram distribution was not paused now, unwinding that distribution (i.e., curing the violation) years later would be impractical. Since a Gram distribution today would, effectively, moot the SEC’s case, the Court’s grant of an injunction is not surprising. The appellate courts, or the trial court, may still take a different view, and in another situation with different facts, a court may view the outcome differently, as well.

For now, though, the Court’s order provides some helpful clarifications and reminders for European companies considering token offerings (whether cryptocurrency, digital assets or digital tokens). First and foremost is that your safest best is to just avoid U.S. jurisdiction by carefully adhering to the restrictions provided in Regulation S under the U.S. Securities Act of 1933. Complying with Regulation S allows a security offering, and subsequent resales, to be excluded from SEC registration if the entire transaction – offers, sales and delivery – is conducted entirely outside the U.S., to non-U.S. persons, with restrictions in place to prevent flow-back of securities into the U.S. In practice, complying with Regulation S means you must have a closed pool of offerees, you must know the details of your initial purchasers, and you must have a closed resale/transfer system to effectively prevent resales to the U.S. or token distributions to U.S. persons (which the SEC refers to as “flow-back” to the U.S.). While there are exceptions and caveats to these general principles, the Court made clear its sympathy to the SEC’s view that the U.S. private placement and Regulation S rules broadly prohibit back-door public token distributions, regardless of whether the tokens themselves are “securities” under the SEC’s rules (which define “security” broadly, a discussion for another day), following a “securities” offering that is not registered with the SEC.

Another key lesson for European companies is that, if the SEC believes your token offering has violated the U.S. securities laws, the SEC may come after you, even if your U.S. contacts are minimal. Telegram argued (unsuccessfully) that its non-U.S. transactions should be exempted from SEC jurisdiction because the issuer was not a U.S. company, its control persons were not in the U.S., some of the contracts were not entered into in the U.S., some of the purchasers were not in the U.S., and some of the securities were not delivered in the U.S. Crucially, however, Telegram did not demonstrate in its court filings that it took the appropriate steps at the time of the offering, sale and intended distribution of the Grams to separate the U.S. private placement transactions from the Regulation S (non-U.S.) transactions. If you, and your proposed transaction, are wholly outside the U.S., but you determine to include some U.S. purchasers in your token offering, you risk bringing the entire transaction within the SEC’s jurisdiction if you do not carefully ensure that your U.S. private placement is separate and distinct from your Regulation S (non-U.S.) offering when you make an offer, confirm a sale, and deliver any tokens, and that the Regulation S transaction has sufficient safeguards in place to avoid flow-back of the tokens into the U.S. by subsequent resales. Structuring a token transaction to comply with Regulation S can be complicated and requires careful attention to current and future token offers, sales, distributions and transfers.

They Did It for the Gram: SEC and Telegram File Dueling Expert Reports

, and

The battle in federal court between the SEC and Telegram continues to progress at breakneck speed. The SEC commenced its action less than four months ago, on October 11, 2019, by seeking a temporary restraining order against Telegram Group Inc. and TON Issuer Inc. (collectively, “Telegram”). That same day, Judge Castel in the Southern District of New York granted the SEC’s TRO request and ordered expedited discovery. Months of intensive discovery ensued that culminated with both parties filing cross motions for summary judgment on January 15, 2020.

At the center of the dispute is whether issuers of digital tokens can avoid registering their sale with the SEC by issuing them pursuant to “SAFTs,” or Simple Agreements for Future Delivery. SAFTs are commercial instruments used to convey rights to digital tokens to sophisticated investors prior to the development of the functionality of the platform on which the tokens are designed to operate. Issuers usually treat SAFTs as securities and offer and sell them pursuant to the exemption from registration in Rule 506(c) of Regulation D under the Securities Act of 1933. The digital tokens are later issued pursuant to the SAFTs once the platform for which the tokens were designed to use is “fully functional.” The theory is that once use-cases exist for the tokens, they no longer constitute securities, but rather utility tokens that can be distributed as commodities or currency without being subject to regulation as securities by the SEC. The SEC action against Telegram based upon its SAFTs and intended issuance of Grams is the first litigated case to contest that theory.

According to the SEC, from January 2018 to March 2018 Telegram entered into SAFTs with sophisticated investors for the future delivery of Grams. Grams have not yet been delivered. In its TRO motion, the SEC argued that the Grams were securities at the time the SAFTs were executed and the temporal separation between the signing of the SAFTs and delivery of the Grams upon the launch of the fully functional Telegram platform (the “TON Blockchain”) is immaterial and does not change the nature of the Grams themselves. The SEC further argued that upon delivery of the Grams to the SAFT investors, those investors will be able to resell the Grams without restrictions. “Once these resales occur, Telegram will have completed its unregistered offering” for which no exemption from registration exists.

In opposition, Telegram argued that the Grams must be separately analyzed from the SAFTs under the federal securities laws. Telegram contended that the Grams are not securities because they “do not exist and may never exist.” Rather, under the SAFTs, Telegram represented that it will create and distribute Grams only upon the launch of a “fully functional TON Blockchain,” which will provide Gram’s use-cases; that is, once the TON Blockchain is launched, Grams will be able to be used for, among other things, payment for physical and digital products and services, commission paid to TON validators for processing transactions and smart contracts, voting on parameters of the protocol, and payment for services provided by third-party applications on the TON Blockchain.

The SEC is expending significant resources in this case. It recently submitted to the Court expert opinions to support its position that token sales are offerings of securities subject to its regulation. Together, these opinions are intended to buttress the SEC’s argument that Telegram’s offering satisfied the Howey test and qualified for no exemption from registration:

  • A financial economist at the SEC’s Division of Economic and Risk Analysis, Carmen A. Taveras, Ph.D., provided an opinion that the price at which Grams are sold increases exponentially over time and is a function of the total number of Grams in circulation. As a result, the price at which purchasers who bought Grams pursuant to the SAFTs is significantly discounted to the price at which Grams will be available for purchase by subsequent buyers. The opinion also disputed Telegram’s representation in promotional materials that it will maintain price stability following the launch of the TON Blockchain by setting up a “TON Reserve” to strategically buy and sell Grams. Taveras concluded that the TON Reserve’s ability to buy and sell Grams would likely have a limited effect on curbing sudden spikes and dips in the price of Grams.
  • A blockchain data scientist in private practice, Patrick B. Doody, opined that while it is reasonable for private placement purchasers to buy Grams expecting to profit by selling them in the secondary market, Grams are unlikely to attract investors seeking a “realistic currency option to buy goods and services.” Telegram’s promotional materials appealed to potential investors seeking to profit through resales, while providing short shrift to factors that would enhance Grams’ viability as a currency, including fraud prevention, theft, integration with existing banking relationships, compliance with financial regulations, and price stability such as that which can be achieved by pegging the price of Grams to a fiat currency.
  • An expert in the field of computer science at Brown University, Maurice P. Herlihy, Ph.D., opined that the publicly released version of the TON Blockchain code lacks critical components that would be required in a fully developed and running system, and users cannot evaluate the security and effectiveness of the TON Blockchain in its current state. Moreover, the TON Blockchain is not yet mature enough to support the suite of services described in TON public documents.

Taken together, the SEC’s experts took the position that (1) Telegram SAFT investors reasonably expected to profit from Telegram’s efforts to develop the TON Network, and (2) that the current state of the TON Network reveals it is not yet mature enough to support the suite of services promised by TON’s public documents.

Telegram also retained its own expert, Stephen McKeon, who holds a Ph.D. in management with a finance focus and a master’s degree in economics. McKeon’s expert report rebuts the SEC’s experts by opining that (1) the profit expectations of SAFT investors is independent from, and not relevant to, the expectations of purchasers following the TON Blockchain launch, and (2) that most TON Network “components are complete or nearing their completion and will be fully available to the TON blockchain users at the launch of the mainnet.”

As further evidenced by the filing of amicus briefs by the Chamber of Digital Commerce and the Blockchain Association, the stakes for the industry in this case are high.

Reading the Blockchain Tea Leaves: Reconciling Telegram and Block.one

and

The juxtaposition of two recent SEC enforcement actions against token issuers may shed some light on the regulator’s evolving regulatory framework.

On October 11, 2019, the SEC won a motion for a temporary restraining order from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against Telegram Group Inc., the creator of Messenger, an encrypted messaging application, to halt its planned $1.7 billion “Gram” token distribution and follow-on sale. The SEC’s action, which alleged that the planned offering of Grams would violate the registration requirements of Sections 5(a) and 5(c) of the Securities Act of 1933, put a halt to a long-running development project and more than 18 months of continued interaction with the SEC.

The SEC’s stance against Telegram stands in stark contrast to its settlement on September 30, 2019, with Block.one, the creator of the EOSIO blockchain protocol. Block.one conducted a year-long initial coin offering that raised a record $4 billion in 2017 and 2018. Block.one’s ICO utilized a dual-token structure: over the course of the ICO, Block.one sold 900 million digital assets (“ERC 20 tokens”) to purchasers. These tokens were freely transferable while the ICO was ongoing. At the end of the ICO, the ERC-20 tokens became nontransferable and, upon the subsequent launch of the EOSIO blockchain, holders of the ERC-20 tokens were entitled to receive the native EOS token. Block.one settled the SEC’s claims against it by agreeing to pay a monetary penalty of $24 million. Unlike what we have seen in similar settlements, the SEC did not require rescission of the sale of the ERC-20 tokens, which were designated securities, or the EOS tokens, which received no mention in the cease-and-desist order. The EOSIO blockchain protocol remains live, and EOS tokens remain in circulation. The SEC also explicitly granted a “bad actor” waiver under Regulation D permitting the Company to continue fundraising and capital formation in the United States.

The SEC’s seemingly distinct approaches to Block.one’s and Telegram’s offerings have left the industry scratching its collective head. What is most odd is the SEC’s decision in the case of Telegram to seek emergency relief, a remedy typically reserved for ongoing frauds, which is not alleged here. In lieu of a public explanation from the SEC, reviewing the differences between the two offerings may be the only way to extract guidance from these actions. There is, however, no way of knowing which differences actually had an impact on the results. Nevertheless, below we discuss some of the differences.

Token Use Case

The SEC’s disparate treatment of Telegram and Block.one may come down to the differences in the nature, purpose and design of their technologies. The SEC has given indications (although not official guidance) that a critical part of the Howey analysis as to whether a token is a security is if purchasers are dependent on a centralized group of people to drive its value; if the developer community of a blockchain technology is decentralized enough, the token may fall outside of Howey.

The Gram may have always been doomed to fail this test because of the planned integration with Messenger, which is a proprietary product. The integration with Messenger was supposed to be a significant driver of the Gram’s value, and the development of Messenger is entirely dependent on Telegram.

In contrast, the EOS tokens and the EOSIO blockchain protocol are designed and meant to power a smart contract platform on top of which other developers may build. Perhaps Block.one’s intention to build a decentralized platform resembling Ether helped it find favor with the SEC.

Manner of Token Sale

Telegram sold “Gram Purchase Agreements” to sophisticated purchasers that promised Grams upon the launch of Telegram’s TON blockchain. No Grams were to be distributed until the launch of the blockchain, presumably because Telegram held the view that if Grams were not distributed until the blockchain was live it might escape the “efforts of others” Howey prong. Clearly, this wasn’t enough to satisfy the SEC.

Block.one’s dual-token structure – issuing ERC-20 tokens first, which entitled holders to EOS tokens once the native EOSIO platform launched – gave the SEC the opportunity to take action against the ERC-20 tokens and remain silent on EOS. It is questionable whether this move is justified by strict legal analysis: the ERC-20 tokens were sold in conjunction with “Token Purchase Agreements” that made it clear to purchasers they were being sold the right to receive EOS tokens. Furthermore, until EOSIO launched, the future value of those EOS tokens was dependent on Block.one. Given the manner of sale, it is unclear why EOS received the apparent favorable treatment over Grams.

Participants in Sale and Availability of Tokens on Secondary Markets

In their official documents, the SEC presented two distinctly different attitudes towards the availability of a token on secondary markets accessible to U.S. persons. For Telegram, such availability justified the SEC in shutting down its entire operation, while for Block.one the availability only provoked a slight admonition, without enjoining the offering.

Block.one made some efforts to prevent U.S. customers from participating in the ICO: it blocked U.S.-based IP addresses and required purchasers to sign a contract that included a provision stating that any purchase by a U.S. person rendered the contract null and void. However, despite those measures, U.S. persons still succeeded in participating in the ICO; moreover, Block.one made efforts that could be viewed as conditioning the U.S. market, including participating in blockchain conferences and advertising EOSIO on a billboard in Times Square. Notably, too, the ERC-20 tokens were widely traded and available for purchase by U.S. persons on secondary markets. Block.one took no steps to prevent this.

In contrast, the fact that Telegram’s tokens would be available to U.S. purchasers on secondary markets drove the SEC’s argument that a TRO and preliminary injunction were necessary, regardless of the fact that Telegram limited the sale of Gram purchase agreements to sophisticated investors and that upon the distribution of Grams and the sale to the public the Telegram network would be fully functional.

Takeaways

The SEC’s distinctly different treatment of Telegram and Block.one provides insight into the SEC’s perspective on what sorts of tokens are securities, and which are not. It appears that the Gram’s integration into Telegram’s proprietary product – and therefore its dependence on Telegram – was critical to the SEC’s analysis. The analogous nature of EOS to Ether probably led to it not being designated a security. However, both ICOs were deemed in violation of securities laws, so neither should serve as a safe harbor for others. Furthermore, there is still no clear legal path to launching a token like EOS.

The SEC Can’t Keep Kik-ing the Crypto Can

and

The SEC’s Action

On June 4, 2019, the SEC sued Kik Interactive Inc. (“Kik”), a privately held Canadian company, in the Southern District of New York, alleging that Kik’s offer and sale of $100 million worth of Kin tokens in 2017 constituted the unregistered sale of securities in violation of section 5 of the Securities Act. In a nutshell, the SEC asserts that, although Kik filed a Form D exemption from registration for the offering, the Kin sale did not qualify for the exemption because the tokens were offered and sold to the general public, not exclusively to accredited investors.

Importance

This case could yield guidance from a court on whether and when tokens constitute securities, to substitute precedential law for the SEC’s pronouncements in settled enforcement actions and guidance issued by its Divisions. The SEC charges that Kin tokens are securities under the Howey test. As a result of Kik’s failure to register the tokens, the SEC alleges, investors did not receive the information from the company relevant for evaluating Kik’s claims about the potential of the investment, including current financial information, proposed use of investor proceeds, and the company’s budget. The Complaint emphasizes the reasonable expectations of “investors” in Kin that the value of their tokens would increase based upon Kik’s efforts, in terms that suggest that Kik’s statements about its projects lacked support and might even have been misleading. And although scienter is not a component of Section 5 charges, and the SEC did not charge fraud, the Complaint alleges that Kik knew or should have known that it was offering securities because, among other things: (1) the SEC had issued the DAO report that applies the Howey test before Kik began offering and selling the tokens; (2) a consultant warned Kik that Kin could be considered a security; and (3) the Ontario Securities Commission told the company that a sale to the public of Kin would constitute a securities offering. Kik’s primary defense is that Kin is not a security but a transaction currency or utility token akin to Bitcoin or Ether, which are not regulated as securities.

This appears to be the SEC’s first litigated federal action against an issuer solely for failure to register. Most registration cases have settled, and the ones that proceeded to litigation involved fraud claims in addition to failure to register. Since 2017 there have been over 300 ICO-related Form D offerings, so many companies may be directly impacted by the outcome of this case. Kik has stated that it intends to litigate through trial, and Kik and the Kin Foundation reportedly have raised a war chest of nearly $10 million (and are still seeking contributions to its defense fund).

Defenses

Although Kik has not yet answered the complaint or moved for its dismissal, the company’s position is well laid out in both a public statement from its General Counsel reacting to the filing, and an extensive Wells submission that Kik took the highly unusual step of making public. The General Counsel commented that the SEC’s complaint stretches the Howey test beyond its definition by, among other things, incorrectly assuming that any discussion of a potential increase in the value of an asset is the same as promising profits solely from the efforts of others. The Wells submission states that Kin was designed, marketed and offered as a currency to be used as a medium of exchange, taking it outside the definition of security, and that it was not offered or promoted as a passive investment opportunity. Besides extensively elaborating on its view that the Howey test is not met, Kik takes issue with “regulation by enforcement,” given the industry’s “desperate” need for guidance regarding the applicability of the federal securities laws.

Conclusion

SEC Chairman Jay Clayton stated last year that all ICOs he has seen are securities. And yet the SEC has pursued enforcement actions against only a small portion of ICOs – less than ten percent – most of which involved fraud or other intentional misconduct. It’s too soon to tell for sure, but this action might suggest that the SEC is now entering a new phase in its enforcement approach to ICOs.

The 2019 Token Taxonomy Act: A Path to Consumer Protection and Innovation Takes Shape

and

We’ve previously written that the Token Taxonomy Act first introduced to Congress by Representatives Warren Davidson (R-OH) and Darren Soto (D-FL) on December 20, 2018, was a welcome legislative initiative designed to provide a regulatory “light touch” to the burgeoning digital asset industry. The bill expired, however, with the termination of the 115th Congress, leaving open the question of what any future blockchain regulatory proposals, would look like. The industry’s questions were answered on April 9, 2019 when Representatives Davidson and Soto introduced the Digital Taxonomy Act of 2019 (DTA) and the Token Taxonomy Act of 2019 (TTA) to the 116th Congress. The DTA and TTA represent expanded efforts to clarify regulation and spur blockchain innovation in the United States.

According to Representatives Davidson and Soto, the DTA is meant to add jurisdictional certainty to efforts to combat fraudulent behavior in the digital asset industry. As such, the DTA grants the FTC $25,000,000 and orders it to prepare reports on its efforts to combat fraud and deceptive behavior. The DTA also specifically carves out from its purview the authority of the CFTC to regulate digital assets as commodities subject to the Commodities Exchange Act.

The 2019 TTA, with the backing of four bipartisan representatives in addition to Davidson and Soto, is similar to last year’s model. Besides defining digital assets and exempting them from certain securities law requirements, the 2019 TTA maintains proposals to amend the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 and the Investment Company Act of 1940 so that certain regulated entities can hold digital assets. Like the 2018 version of the TTA, the 2019 TTA would also allow the sale of digital assets to qualify for the benefits of Internal Revenue Code Section 1031 like-kind exchange provisions and for the first $600 dollars of profit from digital asset sales to be tax-free.

The TTA also has important updates. The most prominent change is the definition of a “digital asset.” As we’ve previously discussed, the 2018 version of the TTA required that a digital asset’s transaction history could not be “materially altered by a single person or group of persons under common control” to qualify for exemption from securities laws. Because of the unavoidable possibility of a 51% attack, which would alter a token’s transaction history, the language created the possibility that proof of work- and proof of stake-based tokens would not be eligible for regulatory relief, thus limiting the bill’s benefits.

In the re-proposed TTA, however, the newly proposed language of Section 2(a)(20)(B)(ii) requires that the transaction history, still recorded in a mathematically verifiable process, “resist modification or tampering by any single person or group of persons under common control.” Thus, any digital asset, even those subject to 51% attacks, may be exempt from certain securities law requirements, although the language appears to require that a governance or security system underline the token’s consensus system.

Another important update is the TTA’s proposed preemption of state regulation of the digital asset industry by federal authorities. While the TTA would still permit states to retain antifraud regulatory authority, it largely strips states’ rights to regulate digital assets as securities. Representative Davidson’s press release on the bill specifically cites the “onerous” requirements of the New York BitLicense regulatory regime as a reason for the inclusion of this provision.

Critics have been quick to point out that the bills, while well intentioned, leave many unanswered questions and therefore may not provide the regulatory certainty the bills’ authors hope to effect. And even a perfect bill would face an uphill battle in getting enacted these days. But the digital asset industry should nonetheless take comfort in the growing contingent of legislators who take seriously the imperative to balance consumer protection and blockchain innovation.

The Beat Goes On: Division of Investment Management Seeks Input on the Impact of the Custody Rule on Digital Currency – and Vice Versa

As part of its ongoing examination of the Custody Rule, the SEC’s Division of Investment Management is seeking views from the securities industry members and the public on two issues regarding the Custody Rule: (1) the application of that rule to trading that is not handled on a delivery versus payment basis, and (2) the application of the rule to digital assets. In a March 12, 2019 letter to the President and CEO of the Investment Adviser Association published on the SEC’s website (“the Custody Release”), the Division seeks input to expand on its Guidance Update from early 2017. Both issues are important in view of the increasing complexity of types of securities that registered investment advisers are purchasing on behalf of their customers and, as discussed below, the issues overlap in a way that might predict an important use case for blockchain technology.

The Custody Rule

The Custody Rule under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 provides that it is a fraudulent, deceptive or manipulative act, practice or course of business for a registered investment adviser to have “custody” of client funds or securities unless they are maintained in accordance with the requirements of the Custody Rule. The definition of custody includes arrangements where the adviser has authority over and access to client securities and funds.

By way of context, we note that although the Custody Rule applies only to registered investment advisers, its concepts are relevant for non-registered advisers and other intermediaries as well, since their clients or customers have a practical interest in assuring that: managed assets are appropriately safeguarded; and the absence of appropriate custody arrangements may preclude a client from investing with a particular adviser.

Also, as the Custody Release notes, the Division previously issued a letter inviting engagement on questions relating to the application of the Investment Company Act of 1940, including the custody provisions of that Act, to cryptocurrencies and related products.

The Custody Rule and DVP Arrangements

The Custody Release points out that when an investment adviser manages funds pursuant to delivery versus payment arrangements – that is, when transfers of funds or securities can only be conducted together with a corresponding transfer of securities or funds – then it provides certain protections to customers from misappropriation by the adviser. The Release seeks to assist the Division in gathering information on payment practices that do not involve delivery versus payment, seeking input on, among other things: the variety of instruments that trade on that basis; the risk of misappropriation or loss associated with such trading; and how such trades appear on client accounts statements.

The Custody Rule and Digital Assets

The Custody Release also asks about the extent to which evolving technologies, such as blockchain/distributed ledger technology, provide enhanced client protection in the context of non-delivery versus payment trading. That question presents a good lead-in to the second part of the Custody Release, which seeks to learn “whether and how characteristics particular to digital assets affect compliance with the Custody Rule.” These characteristics include:

– the use of distributed ledger technology to record ownership;

– the use of public and private cryptographic keys to transfer digital assets;

– the “immutability” of blockchains;

– the inability to restore or recover digital assets once lost;

– the generally anonymous nature of DLT transactions; and

– the challenges posed to auditors in examining DLT and digital assets.

With these characteristics in mind, the Division asks are fairly open-ended about the challenges faced by investment advisers in complying with the Custody Rule with respect to digital assets, including:

– to what extent are investment advisers construing digital assets as funds or securities?

– are investment advisers including digital assets in calculating regulatory assets under management in considering with they need to register with the SEC?

– how can concerns about misappropriation of digital assets be addressed?

– what is the process for settlement of digital asset transactions, either with or without an intermediary?

The most forward-looking question asked in the Release is whether digital ledger technology can be used for evidencing ownership of securities. The answer to this question – which could represent a direct application of the blockchain’s ability to record ownership and its immutability – could pave the way to resolving custody concerns with respect to any asset class transacted in by investment advisers on behalf of their clients. It certainly points the way to an important possible use of blockchain technology – to demonstrate custody in a way that is immutable, anonymous and auditable. Technologists, get to work!

The Custody Release’s questions are a significant next step in drawing digital assets into the embrace of investment adviser regulation, but a positive step nonetheless.

SEC’s Light Touch: An ICO Settlement Without a Penalty

In another first for the digital token industry, on February 20 the SEC announced a settlement involving a self-reported unregistered initial coin offering (ICO) without imposing a penalty. Like its earlier settlements with AirFox and Paragon, the SEC required Gladius Network LLC to repay investors and register its GLA tokens as securities. This time, however, in a sign that the SEC is willing to work with companies trying to come into compliance, the SEC did not impose a monetary penalty due to the company’s “decision to self-report and its extensive cooperation with the staff’s subsequent investigation.”

Having just completed their freshman year at the University of Maryland College Park in 2017, Max Niebylski, Alex Godwin, and Marcelo McAndrew during their summer break founded Gladius as a cyber security company dedicated to ending Distributed Denial of Service attacks. On September 27, 2017 Gladius released a White Paper, and between October 13, 2017 and December 13, 2017 it raised a total of $12.7 million dollars through the sale of GLA tokens.

In an apparent attempt to maneuver around the securities laws and avail itself of the as-yet-untested utility token defense – which attempts to show that the tokens did not represent an investment contract but rather, like it sounds, something with utility for the purchaser – Gladius required participants in the ICO to warrant that they were purchasing GLA tokens “solely for the purpose of accessing Services . . . [and not for] any investment, speculative or other financial purposes.” Nevertheless, in the summer of 2018 Gladius self-reported the unregistered sale of GLA tokens to the SEC’s Division of Enforcement.

The SEC, in the settlement order, included a one-sentence Howey analysis, finding that the sale of GLA tokens met the factors of Howey because “[a] purchaser in the offering of GLA Tokens would have had a reasonable expectation of obtaining a future profit based upon Gladius’s efforts to create a ‘marketplace’ using the proceeds from the sale of GLA Tokens and to provide investors with liquidity by making GLA Tokens tradeable on secondary markets.”

Although the Company will have to comply with notice and reporting requirements under the federal securities laws, the only ordered monetary relief is the requirement that the Company refund GLA token purchases made between September 2017 and December 2017 pursuant to a claims process similar to what the SEC devised for the AirFox and Paragon settlements. Given the infrequency with which investors actually file claims, it is unlikely that the Company will end up refunding the full $12.7 million-dollar obligation it faces.

In another notable deviation from the AirFox and Paragon settlements, the SEC directed Gladius to provide the Commission advance notice if it planned to file a Form 15 to terminate its registration pursuant to Rule 12g-4 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on the grounds that the GLA Tokens no longer constitute a “class of securities.” This seemingly superfluous requirement could be the SEC’s way of signaling to the industry that token issuances that remain below the monetary and holder threshold requirements of Rule 12g-4 will not run afoul of securities laws.

All told, the Gladius settlement is proof that the SEC continues to show leniency to token issuers who violated the securities laws if they act in good faith and come into compliance.

Blockvest II: Court Reverses Itself and Grants the SEC a Preliminary Injunction in the Face of Manifest Fraud

and

As we previously discussed, the SEC suffered a rare defeat in Securities and Exchange Commission v. Blockvest, LLC et al. on November 27, when Judge Curiel of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California issued a denial (the “November Order”) of its motion for a preliminary injunction against Defendants’ future violations of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 (“Section 17(a)”), despite manifest evidence of fraudulent representations in the Defendants’ website postings. The November Order attracted intense scrutiny and on December 17, the SEC moved for partial reconsideration of the November Order. Last week, on February 14, the court granted, in part, the SEC’s motion for reconsideration (the “February Order” and, together with the November Order, the “Orders”), relying on purported new evidence and an argument that the court apparently had overlooked. It is fair to ask whether the new evidence motivated the reversal.

As Judge Curiel recited, under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a motion for reconsideration is appropriate, among other reasons, if the district court is “presented with newly discovered evidence.” Judge Curiel stated that the standard for granting a preliminary injunction requires the SEC to show: “(1) a prima facie case of previous violations of federal securities laws, and (2) a reasonable likelihood that the wrong will be repeated.” Based upon these standards, the court concluded that reconsideration in this case was warranted “based upon a prima facie showing of Defendants’ past securities violation and newly developed evidence which support the conclusion that there is a reasonable likelihood of future violations.” However, it is not clear what “newly developed evidence” formed the basis for this conclusion.

In applying the Howey test to the tokens offered by Blockvest, the court agreed with the SEC that “the Howey test is unquestionably an objective one.” The court disputed the SEC’s assertion that in the November Order the court had applied a “subjective test” by relying solely on the beliefs of some individual investors. Rather, the court stated that it had “objectively inquire[d] into the ‘terms of promotional materials, information, economic inducements or oral representations at the seminars, or in other words, an inquiry into the ‘character of the instrument or transaction offered’ to the ‘purchasers.’”

The court emphasized that in the November Order it had denied the motion for a preliminary injunction “because there were disputed factual issues as to the nature of the investment offered to alleged investors.” Nonetheless, the court acknowledged that in denying the SEC’s motion for a preliminary injunction, it did not “directly address” an alternate theory originally presented by the SEC that the promotional materials presented on Defendants’ website, in the whitepaper posted online, and on social media accounts concerning the ICO of the token constituted an offer of unregistered securities that contained materially false statements and therefore violated Section 17(a). The court again applied the Howey test to find that the tokens being offered were securities. The court also rejected the defendants’ arguments that applied state law to interpret “offer” narrowly to require a manifestation of an intent to be bound, finding that “offer” is broadly defined under the securities laws.

The court also found that the SEC had satisfied the required showing that there is a reasonable likelihood of future violations, one of the elements of injunctive relief. In support of its ruling, the court cited the misrepresentations in Defendants’ website postings that had been detailed in the November Order and which were manifestly fraudulent. Based upon this information, addressed by the SEC in supplemental briefing, the court granted partial reconsideration of the November Order.

Also factored into the February Order were the findings that defense counsel had moved to withdraw as counsel because “the firm found it necessary to terminate representation due to, inter alia, Defendants instructing counsel to file certain documents that counsel could not certify under Rules of Civil Procedures 11… and Defendants have yet to find substitute counsel.” The court stated its concerns that Defendants would resume their prior alleged fraudulent conduct, in light of its order allowing defense counsel to withdraw.

Given the severity of the fraudulent representations as alleged in the SEC’s action, which included false claims of approval by federal regulators and a wholly fabricated federal agency, it was surprising that the court had originally denied the SEC’s request for a preliminary injunction; the need to shut down ongoing fraud and protect investors often drives a court’s rulings on requests for interim relief in these cases. It appears that in reversing itself, the court rethought its reasoning based on the information and arguments that the SEC had originally presented. In one telling ruling in the new decision, the court declined to accept new arguments raised by defendants in opposition to the motion for reconsideration because they had not previously raised them. It appears that the SEC can shrug off its original loss and continue to seek to shut down this alleged fraud with all the power of the federal securities laws.