Keyword: virtual currency

The SEC’s Second No-Action Relief for Digital Tokens: Meaningful Relief or a Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing?

Pocketful of Quarters, Inc. (PoQ) is the second-ever recipient of no-action relief from the Division of Corporation Finance of the Securities and Exchange Commission for the issuance of “Quarters.” Quarters are a digital arcade token that is usable, like its conventional physical counterparts, across participating games and platforms. This no-action relief evidences a more thoughtful and sophisticated approach to the regulation of digital tokens and, in that respect, is welcome news to an industry that has been adrift since SEC Chairman Clayton’s statement in December 2017 that “[b]y and large, the structures of initial coin offerings that [he has] seen promoted involve the offer and sale of securities.” This no-action relief, though arguably unnecessary because Quarters are clearly not securities, confirms that certain classes of tokens are not subject to the requirements of the federal securities laws. Moreover, the conditions and restrictions imposed by the no-action letter on the issuance and use of Quarters are so onerous that the relief granted, while reaffirming, is not groundbreaking.

In the no-action relief, the Chief Legal Advisor to FinHub indicated that, subject to conditions, the Division would not recommend enforcement action to the Commission if PoQ offers and sells Quarters without registering the tokens as securities under Section 5 of the Securities Act and Section 12(g) of the Exchange Act. Some of the more significant conditions are:

  • The Quarters will be immediately usable for their intended purposes (gaming) at the time they are sold;
  • PoQ will restrict the transfer of Quarters through technological and contractual provisions governing the Quarters and the Quarters Platform that restrict the transfer of Quarters to PoQ or to wallets on the Quarters Platform;
  • Gamers will only be able to transfer Quarters to addresses of Developers with Approved Accounts or to PoQ in connection with participation in e-sports tournaments;
  • Only Developers and Influencers with Approved Accounts will be capable of exchanging Quarters for ETH at pre-determined exchange rates by transferring their Quarters to the Quarters Smart Contract;
  • Quarters will be made continuously available to gamers in unlimited quantities at a fixed price;
  • PoQ will market and sell Quarters to gamers solely for consumptive use as a means of accessing and interacting with Participating Games.

Considered as a whole, these conditions are so restrictive and duplicative that they raise doubt as to the necessity of the relief. For example, since Quarters will be made continuously available in unlimited quantities at a fixed price, no reasonable purchaser can expect the price of Quarters to increase and therefore cannot expect to profit from the purchase of Quarters. Accordingly, the transfer and secondary market trading restrictions are superfluous, and by highlighting them as a condition of the relief, CorpFin is effectively imposing conditions on a non-security.

Commissioner Hester Pierce raised a similar concern regarding the staff’s issuance of the first token no-action letter to TurnKey Jet, a charter jet company that sought to tokenize gift cards that could be used to charter its jet services. She stated that the offering of Turnkey tokens is so “clearly not an offer of securities that I worry the staff’s issuance of a digital token no-action letter . . . may in fact have the effect of broadening the perceived reach of our securities laws.” She continued by stating that the Turnkey no-action letter “effectively imposed conditions on a non-security.” Nevertheless, the Quarter’s no-action relief should be touted because it reestablishes the possibility of issuing a digital token that is not a security.

There are three additional aspects of PoQ’s letter requesting no-action relief that merit special attention: (i) the two-tiered token approach used by PoQ; (ii) the built-in token economics managed by a smart contract; and (iii) the condition that KYC/AML compliance reviews must be made at account initiation and on an ongoing basis.

First, Quarters are the second class of tokens that PoQ will issue, but the only one for which it sought no-action relief. PoQ conceded that the first class of tokens PoQ issued, “Q2 Tokens,” are securities, which were sold to investors through an exempt offering to raise funds to build the Quarters platform. The holders of the Q2 Tokens will benefit from the sale of Quarters by receiving, ratably, 15% of the funds collected from the sale of Quarters. This, or a similar, structure could prove beneficial to other investors that purchased tokens through an exempt offering and are now waiting for a return on their investment.

Next, the no-action relief implicitly approves the token economics of the PoQ network. According to PoQ’s letter requesting no-action relief, a portion of the funds received from the sale of Quarters will be used to compensate developers, influencers and Q2 Token holders in ETH. The funds distribution process will be managed by a smart contract. If Quarters are purchased with fiat currency, PoQ will transfer an equivalent amount of ETH to the Quarters Smart Contract upon such purchases for the purposes of such compensation.

Last, the no-action request raises, but leaves unanswered, a question pertinent to all token issuers: whether PoQ or any participant on the Quarters Platform must register with FinCEN as a money services business. Although this question is left unanswered, it appears that PoQ has built in some processes that would be required if it were a registered MSB. For example, a condition of the no-action relief states that: “to create an Approved Account, Developers and Influencers will be subject to KYC/AML checks at account initiation as well as on an ongoing basis.” In addition, the no-action request explains that purchases of Quarters through the PoQ Website “will occur via a licensed payment processor.” Similarly, purchases made through the Apple App store and Google Play store will occur via the standard payment processing solutions generally applicable to purchases made through those platforms; it is possible that this system was put in place to take advantage of one of the money transmitter exemptions such as the payment processor exemption. For the time being, however, it appears that PoQ has not registered with FinCEN; PoQ does not appear as a registered entity on FinCEN’s MSB Registrant database.

Though restrictive in its terms, the Quarters no-action relief demonstrates the SEC’s willingness to engage with token issuers and permit use of cryptocurrency outside of the SEC’s regulation, although the agency does not appear ready to give the concept free reign.

FinCEN Shows a Little Bite to Go with Its Bark

Last week, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) backed up its strong public statements about enforcing the anti-money laundering (AML) laws with respect to cryptocurrency by bringing an enforcement action against an individual for violating the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA).

FinCEN, a bureau within the U.S. Department of Treasury tasked with safeguarding the financial system from illicit use and combating money laundering, has not been shy about expressing interest in blockchain and cryptocurrency issues. In a recent speech, Director Kenneth A. Blanco explained that “FinCEN has been at the forefront of ensuring that companies doing business in virtual currency meet their AML/CFT obligations regardless of the manner in which they do business.” He added that FinCEN “will continue to work with the SEC and CFTC to ensure compliance in this space and will not hesitate to take action when we see disregard for obligations under the BSA.” But FinCEN enforcement actions involving cryptocurrency activities have been infrequent. Since its landmark action against Ripple Labs in 2015, FinCEN’s only enforcement proceeding in this area was brought in 2017 against virtual currency exchanger BTC-e and its owner.

That changed last week when FinCEN assessed a civil penalty against Eric Powers, a “peer-to-peer exchanger” of virtual currency, for violations of the BSA. In agreeing to pay a $35,350 penalty, Powers admitted that he willfully violated the BSA by failing to (i) register as a money services business (MSB), (ii) implement written policies and procedures for ensuring BSA compliance, and (iii) report suspicious transactions and currency transactions.

The Powers action does not provide much insight into one of the more difficult questions a company whose business involves virtual currency faces: whether it qualifies as an MSB that is subject to the BSA. FinCEN guidance from 2013 indicates that the BSA generally will apply to “exchangers” and “administrators” of convertible virtual currencies. Unlike many virtual currency companies, Powers seems to have clearly fit within FinCEN’s definition of an exchanger – through online postings he advertised his intention to purchase and sell bitcoin for others, and he completed purchases and sales by delivering or receiving currency in person, through the mail, or via wire transfer. But in establishing that the BSA applied to Powers, FinCEN leans heavily on the 2013 guidance. That guidance in many ways is imprecise or unclear and it continues to create uncertainty as blockchain technology and virtual currency business models continue to evolve. But the Powers assessment confirms that other entities operating in the cryptocurrency space nevertheless should continue to evaluate their BSA obligations through the lens of that guidance to the extent possible.

Unlike those assessed against Ripple and BTC-e, the financial penalty assessed against Powers was relatively small. This might be because Powers was a natural person (potentially with a lesser “ability to pay” than larger incorporated entities), conducted a fairly small-scale operation, and paid larger sums as part of an earlier civil forfeiture action brought by the Maryland U.S. Attorney. While those considerations warranted a lesser penalty in Powers’s case, FinCEN very well could apply the same law, guidance, and reasoning underlying the assessment to more extensive cryptocurrency operations. Director Blanco’s recent comments regarding FinCEN’s priorities and this latest enforcement action suggest that FinCEN likely will do just that. In other words, we wouldn’t be surprised if FinCEN brings more enforcement actions – levying more severe penalties – to enforce the BSA in the cryptocurrency industry. Persons and entities operating in this industry thus should focus on assessing their potential BSA obligations early and take affirmative steps to comply if required.

NYDFS to Virtual Currency Exchange: Don’t Let the Door Hit You on Your Way Out

The New York Department of Financial Services virtual currency license is back in the spotlight after NYDFS announced that it had rejected the application of Bittrex Inc., a virtual currency exchange, to conduct virtual currency business in the Empire State. The NYDFS virtual currency license, or BitLicense, is notoriously difficult to obtain, having been granted to only 19 companies since it was implemented in July 2014. Although all BitLicense application denials are technically publicly available (but not published), the announcement of Bittrex’s application denial in such a public way is a first for the regulator. The rejection letter states that “Bittrex has failed to demonstrate responsibility, financial and business experience, or the character and fitness to warrant the belief that its business will be conducted honestly, fairly, equitably and carefully. . . .” The denial, coupled with the requirement that Bittrex immediately close up shop in New York, marks a very public rebuke of the exchange, which Bittrex met with a prompt and strongly worded response of its own.

Bittrex submitted its BitLicense application on August 10, 2015. On April 10, 2019, NYDFS publicly announced the rejection of Bittrex’s application. New York allowed Bittrex to operate in the state during the three and a half year application process under the terms of a safe harbor. According to NYDFS’s public rejection letter, the prolonged application process culminated in a four-week on-site review of Bittrex’s operations by NYDFS in February 2019. As a result of the on-site review, NYDFS rejected Bittrex’s BitLicense application based primarily on “deficiencies in Bittrex’s Bank Secrecy Act (BSA), Anti-Money Laundering (AML) and Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) compliance program; a deficiency in meeting the Department’s capital requirement; and deficient due diligence and control over Bittrex’s token and product launches.” This long list of deficiencies, after such a long and laborious application process, appears at odds with the Department’s statement that “throughout Bittrex’s application process, the Department worked steadily with Bittrex” to address deficiencies in some of the very same areas found to be deficient during the February 2019 review.

According to the rejection letter, Bittrex has approximately 35,000 New York-based users who must now find a new exchange on which to trade. This is not going to be an easy task because Bittrex is a market leader listing 212 digital assets on its exchange. By way of comparison, Coinbase, which received its BitLicense in January 2017, lists six digital assets on its exchange (not including the digital assets listed on Coinbase Pro).

Within hours Bittrex responded to the public rejection with its own statement asserting that the rejection “harms rather than protects New York customers,” and stating that “Bittrex fully disputes the findings of the NYDFS” in its rejection letter. According to Bittrex, the NYDFS rejection letter contains “several factual inaccuracies” which Bittrex addresses in its response letter.

Given the public nature of this confrontation and the status of New York as a major financial hub, it is unlikely that we have heard the last of this from the parties involved. In the interim, industry participants should review the NYDFS rejection letter and Bittrex’s response, both of which provide helpful insight into the BitLicense application process and the requirements that digital asset companies have to meet if they seek to offer services in New York.

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

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.

Appellate Court – Selling Bitcoin in Florida Requires a Money Services Business License

Following a recent opinion by a Florida appellate court, virtual currency dealers who do business in, from, or into Florida – even individuals in the business of selling their own virtual currency for cash – may be required to obtain a “money services business” license from Florida’s Office of Financial Regulation and maintain costly anti-money laundering programs in accordance with Florida and federal law or face criminal penalties.

On January 30, Florida’s Third District Court of Appeal reinstated criminal charges against Florida resident Michell Espinoza for money laundering and “unlawfully engaging in the business of a money transmitter and/or payment instrument seller without being registered with the State of Florida.” State v. Espinoza, No. 3D16-1860, slip op. (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. Jan. 30, 2019). The trial court had previously dismissed the charges against Espinoza, agreeing with his argument that selling Bitcoin does not qualify as “money transmitting” under Florida law because Bitcoin is not “money,” among other reasons. State v. Espinoza, No. F14-2923 (Fl. Cir. Ct. July 22, 2016). The appellate court disagreed and determined that even a person in the business of selling his own Bitcoin for cash is a “money transmitter” and “payment instrument seller” under Florida law and is therefore required to be licensed as a “money services business.”

The charges against Espinoza stem from a sting operation in 2013, in which undercover detectives contacted Espinoza through a Bitcoin exchange site, LocalBitcoins.com. Espinoza posted on that site that he would sell Bitcoins for cash through in-person transactions. Espinoza was not licensed or registered as a “money services business” with Florida or federal regulators. An undercover detective met Espinoza several times and paid him a total of $1500 cash for Bitcoin, earning Espinoza a profit. During those transactions, the undercover detective allegedly made clear his desire to remain anonymous and said he was involved in illicit activity. For example, the undercover detective allegedly told Espinoza that he needed the Bitcoin to buy stolen credit card numbers from Russians.

The Florida appellate court’s determination that Bitcoins are “monetary value” and “payment instruments” under Florida law fits within a line of cases finding that Bitcoin qualifies as “money” for the purposes of money laundering and anti-money laundering laws. For example, in 2014 Judge Rakoff, a United States District Judge for the Southern District of New York, found that Bitcoin clearly qualifies as “money” or “funds” for the purposes of the federal money transmitter statute because “Bitcoin can be easily purchased in exchange for ordinary currency, acts as a denominator of value and is used to conduct financial transactions.” United States v. Faiella, 39 F. Supp. 3d 544, 545 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) (citing SEC v. Shavers, 2013 WL 4028182, at *2 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 6, 2013)). Some states have also codified virtual currency into their anti-money laundering regulations. For example, after the trial court determined that Bitcoin was not a “monetary instrument” that could be laundered under Florida’s money laundering statute, the Florida legislature amended the statutory definition of “monetary instruments” to explicitly include the term “virtual currency.” Fla. Stat. § 896.101(2)(f) (2017). Other states, however, have taken a different approach. Pennsylvania’s Department of Banking and Securities (“DoBS”), for example, recently published guidance that virtual currency, including Bitcoin, is not considered money under Pennsylvania law. “Money Transmitter Act Guidance for Virtual Currency Businesses,” Pennsylvania Department of Banking and Securities (Jan. 23, 2019).

The Florida appellate court found that Espinoza was operating as a “money transmitter” and therefore was a “money services business,” simply by engaging in the business of selling his own Bitcoin for cash and not otherwise acting as a middleman between parties. The trial court had applied the more common and narrow understanding that a “money transmitter” operates “like a middleman in a financial transaction, much like how Western Union accepts money from person A, and at the direction of person A, transmits it to person or entity B,” as explained by the appellate court.

To reach its conclusion, the Florida appellate court looked to the text of Florida’s money services business statute – which the court believes is critically different from federal regulations. Under both federal and Florida state law, a “money services business” is defined to include a “money transmitter.” Compare 31 C.F.R. § 1010.100(ff) with Fla. Stat. § 560.103(22). According to the Florida appellate court, the federal definition of “money transmitter” includes a third-party requirement. Under federal regulations, a “money transmitter” means a person engaged in the “acceptance of currency, funds or other value that substitutes currency from one person and the transmission of currency, funds, or other value that substitutes for currency to another location or person by any means.” 31 C.F.R. § 1010.100(ff)(5(i)(A) (emphasis added). In comparison, the Florida statute defines a “money transmitter” as an entity “which receives currency, monetary value, or payment instruments for the purpose of transmitting the same by any means.” Fla. Stat. § 560.103(23). The Florida appellate court found that, in contrast to the federal regulations, the Florida statute’s “plain language clearly contains no third party transmission requirement in order for an individual’s conduct to fall under the ‘money transmitter’ definition” and, as such “decline[d] to add any third party or ‘middleman’ requirement.”

The appellate court’s interpretation of the text of Florida’s statute is disputable. From a statutory interpretation perspective, the middleman requirement is arguably inherent in the plain meaning of the word “transmit,” which is defined by Merriam-Webster as “to send or convey from one person or place to another.” (Notably, Pennsylvania’s DoBS recently issued guidance interpreting the word “transmitting” in a comparable state statute to include a third-party requirement. See “Money Transmitter Act Guidance for Virtual Currency Businesses,” Pennsylvania DoBS (Jan. 23, 2019) (interpreting statute that “[n]o person shall engage in the business of transmitting money by means of a transmittal instrument for a fee or other consideration with or on behalf of an individual without first having obtained a license from the [DoBS]” to impose a third-party requirement).) It would, therefore, be reasonable to interpret Florida’s statute as consistent with federal regulations. Moreover, the Florida appellate court’s interpretation of the statute could have broad and troubling consequences. Although dicta in the Florida appellate court’s decision make it seem like the court is making a distinction between “merely selling [one’s] own personal bitcoins” and “marketing a business,” the court’s statutory interpretation leaves open the possibility that the mere act of selling one’s own property – without registering as a “money services business” – could be a crime.

While we watch to see whether Espinoza will appeal this decision to the Florida Supreme Court, virtual currency dealers should be aware that selling virtual currency in, from or into Florida may require a money services business license and the maintenance of an anti-money laundering program.

The Token Taxonomy Act: A Fatal Drafting Ambiguity

As we’ve previously written, the Token Taxonomy Act (TTA) is an ambitious and potentially impactful piece of legislation that, by exempting digital tokens from the securities laws, might remove regulatory inhibitions from the maturing digital token industry. The bill is not without fault, however. As it stands, the language of the bill requiring that a digital token’s consensus be inalterable is ambiguously written and the SEC could use a strict interpretation to preclude many digital assets from qualifying as digital tokens.

The proposed additional language of Section 2(a)(20)(B) of the Securities Act of 1933 reads that to qualify for the exemption, a digital token:

(i) must be recorded in a distributed, digital ledger or digital data structure in which consensus is achieved through a mathematically verifiable process; and

(ii) after consensus is reached, cannot be materially altered by a single person or group of persons under common control.

In other words, a digital token must use an inalterable and objectively verifiable process. This language is designed to include in the definition only those digital tokens that are or will be in widespread enough use so that no one single party can influence the nature of the outstanding tokens in a way that adversely affects digital token holders.

The proposed language creates the possibility that the SEC could strictly apply the requirement that a token “cannot” be materially altered. As it stands, proof-of-work and even proof-of-stake digital assets are susceptible to a 51% attack, which could alter the digital token’s consensus. “Proof-of-work” and “proof-of-stake” refer to different systems used to verify and process transactions on a blockchain.

A “51% attack” is an event in which a party takes control of the requisite computer power underlying a token’s blockchain such that the party can control the token platform’s operation. Typically, a party seeking such control needs to possess 51% of the outstanding tokens, but the threshold amount can be lower for individual digital assets. A party that has successfully executed a 51% attack can change the ledger history so that it can, for example, double-spend tokens.

The SEC could negate the potential application of the TTA because the recent 51% attack against Ethereum Classic shows that the risk of attack against proof-of-work digital assets, especially those with a low market capitalization, is real. And although the proof-of-stake system makes a 51% attack prohibitively expensive, the SEC could justifiably claim that it is theoretically possible. An irrational, non-economic actor could still stage a 51% attack against a proof-of-stake digital asset with an intent to destroy it rather than to make profit.

In the end, the ambiguity in the bill’s language might not have a deleterious effect. It is hoped that a regulator would not strictly interpret the bill’s language to exclude the intended beneficiaries because of a hypothetical possibility of a 51% attack. So, too, the digital asset industry will likely continue to innovate new and more secure protocols that could potentially eliminate the threat of 51% attacks, making potential exclusion from the bill’s benefits a moot point. Nonetheless, as the TTA undergoes revision, the potential ambiguity in the proposed language should be remedied.

FCA Proposes Guidance on Cryptoassets, but Questions Remain

In January, the UK’s Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) released a consultation on potential guidance on cryptoassets that provides useful direction on how cryptoassets fall within the current regulatory regime. This consultation, one of the publications resulting from the Cryptoasset Taskforce’s October 2018 final report, does not drastically alter the current regulatory landscape, but rather provides clarity on the FCA’s current regulatory perimeter. The consultation also references a consultation by Her Majesty’s Treasury (HMT) that is expected in early 2019, which will explore legislative changes and potentially broaden the FCA’s regulatory remit on cryptoassets.

The FCA consultation on guidance asks for responses to the questions it poses by April 2019. The FCA does not intend to publish its final guidance until this summer; the guidance noted in this consultation paper is subject to change and should not be considered the FCA’s definitive position. However, subject to the feedback that is received, the consultation gives a good indication of the FCA’s thinking with regards to the regulation and classification of cryptoassets. Some of the points highlighted in the consultation are discussed below.

Exchange Tokens / Anti-Money Laundering

The FCA has confirmed that exchange tokens, such as Bitcoin, Litecoin or Ether, do not fall within the regulatory perimeter. This had already been expressed in the Cryptoasset Taskforce’s report, but it is useful to have it repeated here.

However, exchange tokens will be caught (along with other cryptoassets) by the 5th Anti-Money Laundering Directive (5AMLD), which will be transposed into UK law by the end of 2019. HMT will formally consult on this, but the FCA expects that 5AMLD will catch exchange between cryptoassets and fiat currencies or other cryptoassets, transfer of cryptoassets, safekeeping or administration of cryptoassets and provision of financial services related to an issuer’s offer and/or sale of cryptoassets. Being caught by the 5AMLD does not, by itself, mean the cryptoasset will be subject to FCA regulation.

Security Tokens

The FCA’s discussion on the classification of security tokens is arguably the most anticipated part of its guidance on cryptoassets. The discussion makes clear that cryptoassets that fall within the definition of a security will be treated as such. However, given that cryptoassets can provide a range of rights and other characteristics, it can be difficult to determine whether they do fall within such definition. While noting that it can be difficult to categorize tokens, the guidance describes the most relevant traditional forms of specified investments that security tokens may fall into. The guidance also notes that products that derive their value from or reference cryptoassets, such as options, futures, contracts for difference and exchange-traded notes, are likely to fall within the regulatory perimeter, even if the underlying cryptoasset does not.

The FCA states in its guidance that tokens that are issued in exchange for other cryptoassets, and not for fiat currency, will not necessarily be exempt from the regulatory regime if they are considered security tokens.

Issuing of one’s own security tokens does not require the issuing company to have a regulatory licence, in the same way that issuing one’s own shares does not require a licence. However, authorization must be obtained by any exchanges in which the tokens are traded, advisers and brokers, and the financial promotions regime will need to be complied with.

Shares / Debt instruments

According to the consultation, if a cryptoasset has the features of a share then it will be considered a specified investment and certain activities involving it will require authorization or exemption. In determining whether a cryptoasset is classed as a share, the FCA has noted that a separate legal personality, and a body which survives a change of member, are significant but not determinative factors in classifying the cryptoasset. Other factors include whether the cryptoasset provides voting rights, control, ownership, access to a dividend based on the performance of the company or rights to distribution of capital on liquidation. Interestingly, the FCA has noted that the definition is dependent on company and corporate law.

There is a trend for token offerings to be packaged as “security token offerings” and promoted in accordance with security requirements, as ICOs are no longer attractive to investors. However, many of these “security token offerings” do not give equity rights. Calling a token a “security token” will not change the nature of the token itself. The FCA has not been clear on this subject, but arguably a security token that does not meet the company law and corporate law definition of a share can be treated as a utility token and not require the trading platform, broker or advisers to be licensed.

A cryptoasset that represents money owed to the token holder will be considered a debt instrument, and therefore will be considered a security token.

If the cryptoasset is considered a share or debt instrument, and is capable of being traded on the capital market, it will be considered a transferable security under the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (MiFID), and the MiFID regime will apply. As with traditional securities, this does not require the security to be listed. If the cryptoasset is able to be transferred from one person to another in such a way that the transferee will acquire good legal title, it is likely a transferable security. It is important to note that a cryptoasset may be considered a share under the UK law, but not a transferable security under MiFID.

Warrants, certificates representing certain securities and rights and interests in investments

Warrants may be issued as cryptoassets in situations where an issuing entity issues A tokens, which will provide the token holder the right to subscribe for B tokens at a later date. If the B tokens represent shares or debentures (or other specified investments), then the A tokens will be considered warrants and therefore specified investments. It is important to note that for the A tokens to be warrants, the B tokens will need to be new cryptoassets issued by the issuing entity. If the A tokens provide a right to purchase B tokens from a secondary market, the A tokens will not be considered warrants.

Similarly, A tokens that provide the token holder with a contractual or property right over other investments (either in cryptoasset or traditional form) will be considered certificates representing certain securities. Cryptoassets which represent a right to or interests in other specified investments are also classified as securities.

Units in collective investment schemes

Certain cryptoassets may be considered units in a collective investment scheme, notably tokens that allow investors to invest in assets such as art or property. Provided the investments in the cryptoassets are pooled, and the income or profits that the cryptoasset holders receive are also pooled, it will likely be considered a unit in a collective investment scheme. Importantly, if the token holders have day-to-day control of the management of the investment, it will fall outside this definition.

Utility Tokens

Tokens that represent rewards, such as reward-based crowdfunding, or the access to certain services, will be considered utility tokens. Utility tokens do not have the features of securities, and therefore fall outside the regulatory perimeter. The FCA has noted that the ability to trade utility tokens on the secondary market will not affect the classification of the token – even though this may mean individuals purchase these as investments.

Payment Services and Electronic Money

The guidance confirms that the use of cryptoassets is not covered by the payment services, unless the cryptoasset is considered electronic money. However, where cryptoassets act as a vehicle for money remittance (i.e. the transfer of money from one account to another, perhaps with a currency exchange) then the fiat sides of the exchange will be caught by the payment services regulations.

While cryptoassets do not fall within the payment services regime, they may fall within the e-money one. To the extent that the cryptoasset is issued on receipt of funds (i.e. fiat currency, not other cryptoassets) and the cryptoasset is accepted by a person other than the electronic money issuer, it may be considered electronic money (unless it is excluded). This would include cryptoassets that are issued on receipt of GBP and are pegged to that currency, as long as the cryptoasset is accepted by a third party. Therefore, stablecoins that meet the definitions set out above may fall within the definition of electronic money.

Issues Outstanding

None of the guidance’s declarations is new, but the guidance does provide useful clarification. What is not clear is how utility or payment tokens wrapped in a security token wrapper but not containing traditional security/equity rights will be treated. In our view, if the token is a utility token dressed in a security token wrapper, it should not necessarily be treated as a security, for UK regulatory purposes including requiring an authorized multilateral trading facility (MTF) to carry out secondary trading. The FCA says nothing here conflicting with this, but it would be useful to have clarity in this regard.

The CFTC Wants to Know More About Ether: Your Feedback Could Impact Ether Futures in 2019

The CFTC is giving the public an opportunity to influence its views as they relate to Ethereum, Ether or similar virtual currencies or projects. On December 11, 2018 the CFTC issued a Request for Information (the “Request”) seeking public comments and feedback on Ether and the Ethereum Network. The Request “seeks to understand similarities and distinctions between certain virtual currencies, including Ether and Bitcoin, as well as Ether-specific opportunities, challenges, and risks,” according to the accompanying press release. The version of the Request published in the Federal Register states that public comments must be received on or before February 15, 2019.

Individuals and companies involved in cryptocurrency, especially if related to the Ethereum Network or one of its competitors, should consider making a submission. The Request states that information submitted to the CFTC will be used to inform the work of LabCFTC (a dedicated function of the CFTC, launched in 2017 to “make the CFTC more accessible to FinTech innovators”) and the CFTC as a whole. It appears likely that the CFTC will look to the submissions to assist it in deciding whether to green light Ether futures trading.

Of the over 2,000 cryptocurrencies currently in circulation, Bitcoin is the only one for which futures contracts are traded on regulated futures exchanges. Bitcoin is also the only cryptocurrency which the SEC (through Chairman Clayton’s testimony) has officially deemed not to be a security. As mentioned in the Request, a certain SEC senior official recently stated that offers and sales of Ether, in its current state, are not securities transactions. The SEC’s stance on Ether likely paves the way for the CFTC to green-light regulated futures exchanges, such as the Chicago Board Options Exchange, to offer Ether futures contracts.

The cryptocurrency market is desperate for some good news to pull it out of the prolonged bear market it is currently enduring. Many had hoped that the announcement of Ether futures would be the catalyst that turns the market around. It appears possible that the CFTC will authorize Ether futures contracts, once it has reviewed the comments submitted in response to this request.

 

HMRC Publishes UK Tax Guidance on Cryptocurrency for Individuals

On December 19, HM Revenue and Customs (“HMRC”), the UK’s counterpart to the US Treasury, published long-awaited (and arguably long overdue) guidance on the taxation of cryptocurrencies (which it refers to as “cryptoassets”), building on the UK government’s Cryptoassets Taskforce’s report that was published last year. This guidance is welcome in an area of law that needs to play catch-up to apply to income and gains on technology and digital assets. It is important to note that this guidance is limited to HMRC’s view in relation to individuals holding cryptoassets and does not extend to tokens or assets held by businesses. However, HMRC states its intention to publish further guidance in relation to the taxation of cryptoasset transactions involving business and companies sometime in the future.

The guidance confirms that HMRC does not consider cryptoassets to be currency or money for tax purposes and separates cryptoassets into three categories of “tokens”: exchange tokens, utility tokens and security tokens. This guidance focuses on the taxation of “exchange tokens,” a term encompassing assets such as Bitcoin, which presumably it considers to be the most prevalent and widespread. The approach is very similar to the IRS’ approach in this area in Notice 2014-21. HMRC considers that in the “vast majority” of cases, individuals hold (and acquire and dispose of) cryptoassets as part of a personal investment and will, therefore, be liable to capital gains tax. The analysis of whether the cryptoassets are held in the nature of a trade or an investment, and the consequential tax treatment, will largely follow the existing approach and case law but HMRC only expects individuals to be buying and selling cryptoassets with such frequency, level of organization and sophistication such that it amounts to a financial trade in itself in “exceptional circumstances”. If, following the application of the traditional analysis, the cryptoassets are considered to be held as part of a trade, then the Income Tax provisions will take priority over the capital gains tax provisions.

Individuals will be liable to Income Tax (and national insurance contribution, where appropriate) on cryptoassets which they receive from their employer as a form of non-cash payment (and which may be collected via withholding tax) and/or in return for “mining” the cryptoassets, “transaction confirmations” or “airdrops” The guidance describes these transactions and the applicable taxes. As discussed in the guidance, miners are the people that verify additions to the blockchain ledger. They may receive either cryptocurrency or fees for this function. An airdrop is where someone receives an allocation of tokens or other cryptoassets, for example as part of a marketing or advertising campaign in which people are selected to receive them. As pointed out in the guidance, while the receipt of cryptoassets is often subject to the income tax, appreciation will be subject to capital gains tax upon disposition.

In addition to the tax analysis, HMRC points out that cryptoasset exchanges might only keep records of transactions for a short period, or the exchange might no longer be in existence when an individual completes their tax return. The onus is, therefore, on individuals to keep separate and sufficient records for each cryptoasset transaction for the purposes of their tax records.

IRS Advisory Committee Identifies the Need to Enforce Compliance on Cryptocurrency Transactions

A recent report (the “Report”) of the IRS Commissioner’s Information Reporting Advisory Committee (“IRPAC”) has identified the need for additional guidance on cryptocurrency transactions to enforce compliance on cryptocurrency transactions. The Report heavily relies on the recent experience the IRS had in enforcing the Coinbase summons, as recently reported in On the Chain. The IRS explained the problem earlier this year: because transactions in virtual currencies can be difficult to trace and have an inherently “pseudo-anonymous” aspect, some taxpayers may be tempted to hide taxable income from the IRS. IRS News Release, IR-2018-71, March 23, 2018. Taxpayers in this situation are at risk, given that, as recently reported in On the Chain, there is no voluntary disclosure program for taxpayers that have failed to report crypto related income.

In the Report, the IRS estimates that potentially unreported cryptocurrency tax liabilities represent approximately 2.5% of the estimated $458 billion tax gap. The calculation relies upon a recent article by Fundstrat Global Advisers, which sets cryptocurrency-related labilities at $25 billion, based on taxable gains of approximately $92 billon and a noncompliance rate of 50%. The Fundstrat Report estimates that approximately 30% of the investors in cryptocurrency are in the U.S., which is more than $500 billion at the end of December 2017 (up from about $19 billion at the start of January 2017!), according to data from CoinMarketCap.

While the IRS previously addressed certain issues in Notice 2014-21, there remain significant open issues that will need additional analysis and further guidance to refine the reporting of these transactions.  For example, the reports cites the following:

  1. whether virtual currency held for investment is a capital asset;
  2. whether the virtual currency ought to be treated as a security, subject or not subject to the wash sale rules, or affected by mark-to-market implications under section 475 of the Code;
  3. whether a taxpayer may use LIFO or FIFO to determine the basis of virtual currency sold;
  4. how to track basis through activities in the blockchain;
  5. whether broker reporting is required under section 6045 of the Code for transactions using virtual currency;
  6. whether a taxpayer may contribute virtual currency to an IRA; and
  7. whether virtual currency is a commodity.

Also, while an initial reading would suggest that virtual currency would not be considered a financial account for FATCA purposes, various guidance notes issued by foreign jurisdictions for purposes of implementing the Common Reporting Standard (CRS) have indicated virtual currency does represent a financial account.  This inconsistency, the Report notes, between regimes that purportedly try to maintain a high level of consistency will be confusing to withholding agents and subject to inherent error.

Citing the recent Coinbase summons and the failures to report income identified in that case, the Report opines that many, if not most, taxpayers will report their virtual currency activities correctly if they are able to determine their tax implications.  Some taxpayers will be tempted to do otherwise, however, because anonymity is inherent in the structure of the block chain activities.  In light of Coinbase, these taxpayers are likely to use exchanges outside the jurisdiction of the U.S.  The Report notes that it is unclear at present whether the U.S. may obtain information from foreign exchange activities (determining the exact nature of residence of the virtual activities of an exchange is itself vexing under existing source and jurisdiction rules, and leads to issues of whether the activities are sourced to any jurisdiction or are stateless income).

The Report concludes with IRPAC stating that it would be very interested in helping develop information reporting and withholding guidance on these important issues.

https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p5315.pdf