/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>50405645
Literally yes.
That's how the SEC slapped Enigma, and it's how they're slapping ripple.

>>26072606
In every case brought by the SEC against a crypto, the projects explicitly promised profits from holding.
Pic is the SEC's case against Enigma, as another example.

Projects like ETH on the other hand were explicitly cleared by the SEC, despite having an ICO.

>>25276593
Here's another clear precedent: the SEC accusing Enigma of selling securities, because Enigma (like Ripple) was seen literally shilling future token price gains..
And again the SEC adheres to the Howey test word for word.

>>25222497
A lot of things do, including things like currencies.
That "expectation of profit" requirement is what separates currencies from securities.

>The one you've underlined (is led to expect profits) could be successfully argued given the amount of rampant price speculation
No.
The company has to explicitly say profit is to be expected just from holding.

Ripple did this constantly.
So did shit like Enigma, see pic.
Notice how the SEC looks for explicit language to meet the Howey test.

Meanwhile projects like ETH are explicitly cleared by the SEC, because they never promised future price increases.
Nor did Chainlink.