The SEC meditates on The DAO: tracing the initial arc of cryptosecurities regulation

Aegis J. Frumento, S. Korenman
{"title":"The SEC meditates on The DAO: tracing the initial arc of cryptosecurities regulation","authors":"Aegis J. Frumento, S. Korenman","doi":"10.1108/joic-09-2019-0053","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nPurpose\nThe purpose of this paper is to review the first two years of the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) efforts to regulate cryptosecurities to assess the trends of that regulation.\n\n\nDesign/methodology/approach\nThe authors review the SEC’s official pronouncements and informal statements about, and its enforcement actions against participants in, various early experiments in cryptosecurities.\n\n\nFindings\nThe SEC has been evolving how to apply the US securities laws to cryptosecurities since its report on The DAO two years ago. When “coins” on a blockchain meet the traditional Howey Test, it is easy to categorize them as “securities.” However, the bedrock regulatory principle that some person must account for violations is frustrated by automated blockchain transactions, where no human is in control. This tension risks a “moral crumple zone” arising around cryptosecurities, in which persons might become liable for violations that they cannot fairly be said to have caused.\n\n\nOriginality/value\nThis paper provides valuable information and insights about the beginnings of US regulation of cryptosecurities and how the evolution of that regulation is trending after two years.\n","PeriodicalId":399186,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Investment Compliance","volume":"44 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-11-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Investment Compliance","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/joic-09-2019-0053","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to review the first two years of the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) efforts to regulate cryptosecurities to assess the trends of that regulation. Design/methodology/approach The authors review the SEC’s official pronouncements and informal statements about, and its enforcement actions against participants in, various early experiments in cryptosecurities. Findings The SEC has been evolving how to apply the US securities laws to cryptosecurities since its report on The DAO two years ago. When “coins” on a blockchain meet the traditional Howey Test, it is easy to categorize them as “securities.” However, the bedrock regulatory principle that some person must account for violations is frustrated by automated blockchain transactions, where no human is in control. This tension risks a “moral crumple zone” arising around cryptosecurities, in which persons might become liable for violations that they cannot fairly be said to have caused. Originality/value This paper provides valuable information and insights about the beginnings of US regulation of cryptosecurities and how the evolution of that regulation is trending after two years.
美国证券交易委员会对DAO进行了思考:追踪加密证券监管的初始弧线
本文的目的是回顾美国证券交易委员会(SEC)监管加密证券的头两年努力,以评估该监管的趋势。作者回顾了美国证券交易委员会关于各种加密证券早期实验参与者的官方声明和非正式声明及其执法行动。自两年前发布关于DAO的报告以来,美国证券交易委员会一直在研究如何将美国证券法应用于加密证券。当区块链上的“硬币”满足传统的Howey测试时,很容易将其归类为“证券”。然而,必须有人对违规行为负责的基本监管原则,在无人控制的自动bb0交易中遭到了破坏。这种紧张关系可能会导致围绕加密证券出现“道德崩溃区”,在这种情况下,人们可能会对无法公平地说他们造成的违规行为承担责任。原创性/价值本文提供了有关美国加密证券监管开始的有价值的信息和见解,以及两年后该监管的演变趋势。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信