Initial Coin Offerings: When Are Tokens Securities in the EU and US?

T. Maas
{"title":"Initial Coin Offerings: When Are Tokens Securities in the EU and US?","authors":"T. Maas","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3337514","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article presents a comparative analysis of the application of US and EU securities laws to initial coin offerings (ICOs), or token sales. An extensive token taxonomy framework is proposed to categorize digital assets in order to advance a more precise discussion on the legal classification and regulation of tokens. For the US, a full analysis of the application of the Howey test to different types of tokens gives insight into classification of tokens as a security (“investment contract”) under Section 2(a)(1) of the US Securities Act of 1933 and 3(a)(10) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The analysis shows that most, if not all, so-called utility tokens can be classified as a security in the US. A possible ‘sufficiency-of-decentralization-test’ is also explored, while taking prior case law and the multiple dimensions of decentralization of blockchain projects into account. \n \nFor EU financial law, the analysis in this paper focuses on the classification of tokens as ‘transferable securities’ under Art. 4(1)(44) of MIFiD II. The analysis shows that, in contrast to the US, pure utility tokens might not be deemed transferable securities under the EU securities regime. Across EU Member States however, large differences exist in terms of the legal classification of most tokens, which result from the freedom provided to EU Member States in transposing the MIFiD II definition of transferable securities into national law. The analysis in this paper provides insight into the two main approaches adhered to by EU Member States in the implementation of this definition, as well as their consequences for the legal classification of tokens. Conclusions are subsequently drawn on possible offering strategies adopted by issuers for future token sales and regulatory developments in the US and EU.","PeriodicalId":157459,"journal":{"name":"ERPN: Securities Law & Public Offerings (Sub-Topic)","volume":"30 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-02-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"15","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ERPN: Securities Law & Public Offerings (Sub-Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3337514","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 15

Abstract

This article presents a comparative analysis of the application of US and EU securities laws to initial coin offerings (ICOs), or token sales. An extensive token taxonomy framework is proposed to categorize digital assets in order to advance a more precise discussion on the legal classification and regulation of tokens. For the US, a full analysis of the application of the Howey test to different types of tokens gives insight into classification of tokens as a security (“investment contract”) under Section 2(a)(1) of the US Securities Act of 1933 and 3(a)(10) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The analysis shows that most, if not all, so-called utility tokens can be classified as a security in the US. A possible ‘sufficiency-of-decentralization-test’ is also explored, while taking prior case law and the multiple dimensions of decentralization of blockchain projects into account. For EU financial law, the analysis in this paper focuses on the classification of tokens as ‘transferable securities’ under Art. 4(1)(44) of MIFiD II. The analysis shows that, in contrast to the US, pure utility tokens might not be deemed transferable securities under the EU securities regime. Across EU Member States however, large differences exist in terms of the legal classification of most tokens, which result from the freedom provided to EU Member States in transposing the MIFiD II definition of transferable securities into national law. The analysis in this paper provides insight into the two main approaches adhered to by EU Member States in the implementation of this definition, as well as their consequences for the legal classification of tokens. Conclusions are subsequently drawn on possible offering strategies adopted by issuers for future token sales and regulatory developments in the US and EU.
首次代币发行:何时在欧盟和美国成为证券?
本文对美国和欧盟证券法在首次代币发行(ico)或代币销售中的应用进行了比较分析。提出了一个广泛的代币分类法框架来对数字资产进行分类,以便对代币的法律分类和监管进行更精确的讨论。对于美国来说,对Howey测试对不同类型代币的应用进行全面分析,可以根据1933年美国证券法第2(a)(1)条和1934年证券交易法第3(a)(10)条,深入了解代币作为证券(“投资合同”)的分类。分析表明,在美国,大多数(如果不是全部的话)所谓的实用型代币都可以被归类为证券。在考虑之前的判例法和b区块链项目分散的多个维度的同时,还探讨了可能的“分散的充分性测试”。对于欧盟金融法,本文的分析重点是根据MIFiD II第4(1)(44)条将代币分类为“可转让证券”。分析表明,与美国相比,在欧盟证券制度下,纯实用型代币可能不被视为可转让证券。然而,在欧盟成员国之间,大多数代币的法律分类存在很大差异,这是由于欧盟成员国在将MIFiD II对可转让证券的定义转换为国家法律方面提供了自由。本文的分析深入了解了欧盟成员国在实施这一定义时所遵循的两种主要方法,以及它们对代币法律分类的影响。随后得出结论,发行人为未来的代币销售和美国和欧盟的监管发展采取可能的发行策略。
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