[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/biz/ - Business & Finance


View post   

File: 74 KB, 599x261, SECgov.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
25274518 No.25274518 [Reply] [Original]

Expectation of Profit under the Howey Test
>Where the network or the digital asset is still in development and the network or digital asset is not fully functional at the time of the offer or sale, purchasers would reasonably expect an AP to further develop the functionality of the network or digital asset (directly or indirectly). This particularly would be the case where an AP promises further developmental efforts in order for the digital asset to attain or grow in value.

If you believe that LINK will be scarce because it will be used by nodes, and the price will increase because of this, then you are in the expectation of profit and LINK is a security. If you do not believe this, you should not be holding LINK. LINK is a security and the SEC is coming.

Further reading:
https://www.sec.gov/corpfin/framework-investment-contract-analysis-digital-assets#:~:text=The%20U.S.%20Supreme%20Court's%20Howey,from%20the%20efforts%20of%20others.

>> No.25274566

>>25274518

Stinkshits on suicide watch.

>> No.25274586

Buy tellor and dia

>> No.25274592

>>25274518
the fact that sergey printed it out of thin air, held an ICO and gave himself 65pct of supply should tell you enough. its a fucking scam

>> No.25274602

>>25274518
i dont expect profit

>> No.25274616

>>25274518
>If you do not believe this, you should not be holding LINK.

I want to help grow the network anon. That's what the tokens are for. Chainlink is a utility token afterall.

>> No.25274628
File: 242 KB, 500x500, 1605289784646.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
25274628

You will never get my linkies you miserable, ugly, desperate trannies. Gnash your teeth and wail louder you worms.

>> No.25274661

>>25274518
Nonsense. Holders may wish to run a node or stake for a node. Through this, they may expect to profit through provision of a service.

>> No.25274666

>>25274518
Sorry, your Cripple bags are still going to zero no matter how many tantrums about the SEC going after Chainlink you throw here.

>> No.25274708

>>25274666
thanks satan

>> No.25274715

Sergey has planned the exit scam for March 2021. After this the problems with the courts will come but he will be a billionaire again in the same way that he did with NXT

>> No.25274728

>>25274616
>>25274661
>XRP is a utility token because banks will use it as liquidity
>Chainlink is a utility token because nodes will use it as collateral
2% of XRP was used for 'utility' and they were thrown to the sharks. Much less than 2% of LINK is actually involved in providing anything remotely resembling a service. Even the very small amount of LINK staked via third parties like LP are 100% subsidized by Sergey's dumps.

>> No.25274740

For some reason I was OK with it when I thought the link fudders were burgers, but now I know they're eastern European it feels so slimy. The thought of someone sitting in some gulag shithole, swigging vodka while they post link fud from a 90s PC, just makes my skin crawl.

>> No.25274755

It's ridiculous, because of the SEC/US laws.

But the best utility tokens act like securities, and are marketed to investors as something that grows for profits. They are marketed to the rest of the world as a purely utility token that has no reason to grow, just to cover their founders asses.

This whole mess is ridiculous and will stay that way for a long time.

>> No.25274774

>>25274666
BASED at least go down with dignity cripple fags

>> No.25274799

XRP literally has former SEC heads as their lawyers. XRP will totally destroy Howey's test and remove all the lingering doubt about crypto scene.

Bullish af.

>> No.25274841

>>25274518
If the SEC wins its XRP case crypto is good as dead. I don't think they'll win it though but xrp price recovery is uncertain.

>> No.25274867

>>25274728
found the cripple holder

>> No.25274868

>>25274799
The problem is this isn't about being right or wrong , the SEC is corrupt.

>> No.25274883

Several top lawyers on twitter already said the same; Chainlink is a security indeed.

Sergey doesn't know what's coming for him lol.

>> No.25274891

>>25274518
I dont think chainlink promised future development to "attain value". Theyre building the infrastructure for the 4th industrial revolution here. Have some respect. Who cares about price? The SEC is pegging ripple specifically because Schwartz said shit that women love to make examples over.

>> No.25274917

>>25274868
Right. That's my point.

>> No.25274918

>>25274518
does this mean ADA is a security too?

>> No.25274935

>>25274918
None of them are securities retard unless the CTO himself says he is working to make sure token value is as high as it can be so the company can offload shares

>> No.25274963

>>25274883
LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL twatter dudes said its SEc omfg thanks lqbtq+asd fucking twatter niggers get out of my board REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

>> No.25274965

>>25274917
What I'm saying is ripple may have all the right answers but that doesn't guarantee them winning against the sec

>> No.25274993

>>25274518
Right now XLM is the best buy that no one is seeing - Jed jumped ship from XRP for a reason, and now you see why. Looks like there is a reason SDF NEVER talks/pumps up the price of XLM. It has none of the vulnerability that XRP has with the SEC suit, is solving the same problem as XRP and is now getting their biggest competitor bukkake'd.

Buy the dip or stay poor

>> No.25274998
File: 1.54 MB, 1853x1578, 1609204475440.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
25274998

>>25274965
What I'm saying is that SEC is corrupt and XRP already has these corrupt people on their side.

>> No.25275031

>>25274518

>Paid Link FUD.

Thanks just bought some more.

>> No.25275033

>>25274965
Even if ripple loses its not indicative of a snowball in the space. Hester picks her targets carefully. Maybe more worrying would be this setting precedent in the event of a new chairman taking over and becoming a terror.

>> No.25275414

>>25275033
That's where your wrong, anything that is a threat to swift will be destroyed

>> No.25275516
File: 332 KB, 1387x1020, 1536109709745.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
25275516

>>25274518
You fucking spastic...the expectation of profit does not deem something a security. The expectation of a dividend does. Go back to bed you fucking retarded tranny. Everyone that invests in anything expects a profit, it doesn't mean its a security.

The absolute level of retardation here is genuinely embarrassing.

>> No.25275580

>>25275516

This kek

>> No.25275596

>>25275414
What we know is ripple isnt a security and it has a network of lawyers. Who knows maybe this is a stunt specifically for them to triumph. Clearly Schwartz isnt a promotor so its almost comically overreaching like a maoist dictatorship would unfairly.

>> No.25275647

>>25274518
Silly FUD

In case there are worried newfags reading this - Sergey has never speculated on price, link has only ever been discussed as a utility. Holders may have inferred that they will profit from the growth of the network, but token price has never been a primary consideration of the team, unlike XRP. As a test, try and find a single quote from the team regarding profits to holders or promises of increased token value in the future.

>> No.25275693

>>25275647
this
the SEC fud and the sudden reappearance of Zeus is bullish as fuck, last time we got this level of fud, link mooned hard

>> No.25275715

If you are truly looking for answers, read the other considerations part of the document. It will help you never click a link SEC FUD thread again.

>> No.25275730

>>25274518
it won't be used
it is already being used

>> No.25275754

False. Linktards expecting profits are retarded, Link has always been designed to be a one dollar stablecoin.

>> No.25275797

if chainlink is a security, 99% of alts are and it's game over for crypto :)

>> No.25275818

>>25275797
Yea and then every small business is too and so are goat herders and really just anyone making money and property becomes illegal

>> No.25275918

>>25274518
Except that's not how the law would be applied, you low iq xrpaypig.
The law doesn't give a shit about investors expecting a price increase on their own based on subjective things such as beliefs or assumptions - it cares about whether the company selling the security has promised that the asset itself will increase in monetary value on its own merit. Sergey and co have only promised to increase in use, which is correct because it is a utility token for a decentralized network, but they have been extremely dilligent in never actually discussing the price effect this might have. You, and the other dumb refugees from the xrp containment thread present here know this is correct, hence why you've never provided any actual proof of any chainlink team member saying that "the price of chainlink will go up because of x" or "link will be $1k eoy."
You might possibly have company on that sinking ship of yours later on, but it won't be link - that's for sure.
Now. S, H, and go the fuck back to twitter where you normies and fags belong.

>> No.25276336

>>25275754
New fag allert.
Prob xrp holder too.
You need to do the opposite of what your brain tells you to do, mongo

>> No.25276463

>>25274628

BASED AND LINKPILLED

>> No.25277450

>>25274628

Nobody wants your shitstinkies.

>> No.25277898

>>25277450
you will never be a woman.

>> No.25278082

>>25274841
https://www.coindesk.com/eos-maker-block-one-settles-with-sec-over-unregistered-securities-sale

EOS settled their case for pennies, i expect Ripple and others to do the same.

>> No.25278601

>>25274518
>This particularly would be the case where an AP promises further developmental efforts in order for the digital asset to attain or grow in value.
Sir Gay NEVER talked about Chainstink's price retard, no matter what the bagholders think. If I buy WoW gold thinking it'll go up it will still not be a security.

>> No.25278771

>>25274518
Cup of coffee. Everyone knew there was no profit

>> No.25278872

>>25275516
it's literally in the definition of a security, as per the supreme court in Howey.
"...developed a landmark test for determining whether certain transactions are investment contracts (and thus subject to securities registration requirements). Under the Howey Test, a transaction is an investment contract if:

It is an investment of money
There is an expectation of profits from the investment
The investment of money is in a common enterprise
Any profit comes from the efforts of a promoter or third party

>> No.25279506

>>25278872
>There is an expectation of profits from the investment
The expectation must be set/promoted by the business, not the investor. Beanie babies were not a security just because speculators thought rare editions would become extremely valuable. The business must be representing the asset as something that will increase in value.

>> No.25279562

>>25274518
This faggot holds LINK.

>> No.25279997

>>25275647
this, there's a huge difference between holders expecting profits due to increases in value in the future (which would apply to literally everything people invest in... that's why they fucking invested in it)
vs situations where the founders are literally shilling it on the basis of expectations of increased future value.

>> No.25280110

So sirgay keeps dumping his own link tokens to keep the price down and prevent it from being profitable?

>> No.25280145

>>25274518
I don’t expect “profit” but I expect to be handsomely rewarded as an infantryman of the Link Marines. Seems more like a salary deal to me. Would you call the guns of WW2 vets “securities?”

>> No.25280304

>>25274518
The SEC has specifically clarified that utility tokens are not considered securities.

>> No.25280358

>>25274518
Why is being labeled a security such a death sentence?

>> No.25280394

>>25280358
because it requires exchanges to list as securities based exchanges which is bothersome. It effectively means you have to get delisted

>> No.25280399

>>25280304
You can't just call something a utility token and it magically becomes one

>> No.25280430

>>25274518
but does it matter? i mean chainlink is based in the cayman islands

>> No.25280470

>>25280394
How hard is it for exchanges to get licensed as securities brokers

>> No.25280513
File: 92 KB, 829x589, 1498616938368.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
25280513

>>25274518
don't know what you're talking about dude. i'm only holding chainlink so i can use the oracle network someday. the price doesn't matter to me.

>> No.25280576

>>25275797
99% of crypto isnt corps that are easy targets for a takedown so it doesnt matter

>> No.25280599

>>25274518
its over

t. chainlink insider ama

>> No.25280659

So this is why sergey is dumping all the tokens.

>> No.25280709

>>25274518
Chainlink is kinda fucked. I'm a lawyer and this checks out. Already sold my bag and I'm all in DEXG. (This is not legal advice)

>> No.25280783

>>25275797
chainlink isn't even decentralized which is the number one reason it isn't a crypto.

>> No.25281378
File: 3.47 MB, 380x380, 5C37C854-5EBE-42DD-9CBA-28A0A3CDCEAF.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
25281378

They’re more desperate than ever literally just cut XRPtards throats in front of us to try and get us to sell.

1000 USD or 0 I don’t give a fuck at this point, either way I’m never selling.

>> No.25281484

>>25275516
Absolutely and irrefutably based.

>> No.25281816
File: 13 KB, 320x199, 7CC723DB-CBCD-401E-B643-0E52078F6ED9.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
25281816

>>25280399
imagine thinking the one coin in crypto with hundreds of known integrations isn’t a utility token. holy fucking retard alert

>> No.25282248

>>25274518
>over.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONCERN FOR MY FINANCIAL WELL-BEING. I HAVE JUST MARKET SOLD MY LINK FOR THE 1000TH TIME THIS WEEK.

>> No.25283100

>>25274518
lol Op nice try

>> No.25284108

>>25274518
>then you are in the expectation of profit
yes 100% that is our opinion but where does it say in the whitepaper that they are expecting profits?

>> No.25284141

>>25274592
>held an ICO
arrest him

>> No.25284247

>>25278872
Where has smartcontracts said this?
where in the whitepaper does it say to expect profits?
this kind of fud gets my dick hard

>> No.25284391

>>25277450
You're poor and will always remain poor.

>> No.25284578

>>25284108

This. The token is made to operate the chainlink network. Its an utility token. The price increase is a secondary phenomenon which could indeed be expected, but it is not the purpose of the link token to increase in price. Eventually the link price will be pegged to 3 big mac super size menus and 4 extra quarter pounders. (Sergeys lunch)

>> No.25284596

Just reported to the SEC. Thanks for playing linkies.

https://www.sec.gov/whistleblower/submit-a-tip

>> No.25284660

>>25284578
the issue is the same with xrp, that chainlinks ceo and company hold a lot of it in reserve and the expectation of profit is hinged on the performance of this team, motivated by the profits they can make holding the reserve. i think it's pretty reasonable to say xrp and chainlink are structured similarly.

>> No.25284751

>>25274518
>If you believe that LINK will be scarce because it will be used by nodes, and the price will increase because of this, then you are in the expectation of profit and LINK is a security
Is buying oil buying a security? It will be scarce because it will be used by companies to produce fuels and plastics, and the price will increase because of this. Does this make oil a security? (No.)
>>25275918
>whether the company selling the security has promised that the asset itself will increase in monetary value on its own merit
This is correct.

>> No.25285025

>>25281816
you stupid fucking retard please look up the SEC definition of a "utility token" before posting
https://www.sec.gov/news/speech/speech-hinman-061418
>And so, when I look at Bitcoin today, I do not see a central third party whose efforts are a key determining factor in the enterprise. The network on which Bitcoin functions is operational and appears to have been decentralized for some time, perhaps from inception. Applying the disclosure regime of the federal securities laws to the offer and resale of Bitcoin would seem to add little value.[9] And putting aside the fundraising that accompanied the creation of Ether, based on my understanding of the present state of Ether, the Ethereum network and its decentralized structure, current offers and sales of Ether are not securities transactions. And, as with Bitcoin, applying the disclosure regime of the federal securities laws to current transactions in Ether would seem to add little value. Over time, there may be other sufficiently decentralized networks and systems where regulating the tokens or coins that function on them as securities may not be required. And of course there will continue to be systems that rely on central actors whose efforts are a key to the success of the enterprise. In those cases, application of the securities laws protects the investors who purchase the tokens or coins.
>I would like to emphasize that the analysis of whether something is a security is not static and does not strictly inhere to the instrument.[10] Even digital assets with utility that function solely as a means of exchange in a decentralized network could be packaged and sold as an investment strategy that can be a security. If a promoter were to place Bitcoin in a fund or trust and sell interests, it would create a new security. Similarly, investment contracts can be made out of virtually any asset (including virtual assets), provided the investor is reasonably expecting profits from the promoter’s efforts.

>> No.25285319

>>25285025
>Let me emphasize an earlier point: simply labeling a digital asset a “utility token” does not turn the asset into something that is not a security.[11] I recognize that the Supreme Court has acknowledged that if someone is purchasing an asset for consumption only, it is likely not a security.[12] But, the economic substance of the transaction always determines the legal analysis, not the labels.[13] The oranges in Howey had utility. Or in my favorite example, the Commission warned in the late 1960s about investment contracts sold in the form of whisky warehouse receipts.[14] Promoters sold the receipts to U.S. investors to finance the aging and blending processes of Scotch whisky. The whisky was real – and, for some, had exquisite utility. But Howey was not selling oranges and the warehouse receipts promoters were not selling whisky for consumption. They were selling investments, and the purchasers were expecting a return from the promoters’ efforts.
Chainlink isn't being used for anything right now except for subsidizing node operators. node operators who are KYC'd and selected by the Chainlink team. The entire point of LINK is that it's supposed to be used for staking, which has yet to be implemented and depends on the team working on it. so by this definition it could easily be labeled a security. even Ether might get reclassified as a security now that ETH 2.0 staking has been released

>> No.25285419
File: 81 KB, 735x928, 43565465476.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
25285419

refute this, fags
>ICO: USA
>>25284596
good job, attach picrelated

>> No.25285548

>>25284751
oil futures are certainly considered securities. my dad was just telling me about a relative who got in trouble with the SEC for selling whisky futures. basically he was convincing rich people to park their money in shares of whisky barrels that were aging and would mature in 12-30 years or whatever and pitching it as a store of value.

>> No.25285674

>>25274518
dude, the only reason anyone bought, is buying link is in anticipation of profits. thats probably the easiest number on the howey test. anyone thinking link is actually being used or people buying it cause to "use" it is a meme. security 10000%. sold at 120k sats so cant care less

>> No.25285734

>>25274518
if this is true, how is the US Dollar not a security? Should we pay tax on holding the dollar?

>> No.25286193

>>25274518
Exactly report linkshit to sec

>> No.25286325

>>25274602
I don't think any of us do anymore anon kek

>> No.25286417

>>25274566
Yep. Anyone still holding Chainlink is an XRP bagholder but worse. Clinging on to some delusion that Trump Won and they'll make it with some scamcoin.

Only true Link Chads cashed out at over 15$ when they bought 3 years ago.

>> No.25286462

This is echoing the '90s tech boom

1. Buy thing
2. Hodl
3. ????
4. Profit!

The market was doing 10x on tech stocks on this very model.