What started with Bitcoin in 2009 has developed into a market of over half dozen,500 digital avails increasingly competing with traditional products offered past financial institutions. The rapid expansion of digital assets, including cryptocurrencies, has led to increased regulatory scrutiny in which the key question is whether these assets should be classified as currencies or securities. This nomenclature is significant because it determines the laws and regulations applicable to a particular asset. Determining whether a cryptocurrency is really a currency or security is challenging. But a lawsuit filed by the Securities and Commutation Commission ("SEC") at the end of last yr, which is currently pending in the The states District Courtroom for the Southern District of New York, volition probable provide boosted guidance on this consequence.

On Dec 22, 2020, the SEC filed a lawsuit against Ripple Labs, Inc. ("Ripple"), and two of its executives, alleging that the defendants failed to annals the cryptocurrency XRP with the SEC or satisfy any exemption from registration, in violation of federal securities laws. As of the appointment of this writing, XRP is currently the eighth largest cryptocurrency with a market capitalization of approximately $53 billion.

In recent years, the SEC has ruled that the two largest cryptocurrencies by market place capitalization, Bitcoin ($1.two Trillion) and Ethereum ($533 billion) are non securities, partly on the grounds that they are decentralized with no person or visitor in control of the cryptocurrencies. XRP differs from Bitcoin and Ethereum in that the latter are created in a gradual process called mining in which the tokens are created over fourth dimension. By contrast, 100 billion units of XRP were all created in 2012 for Ripple. Ripple presently owns the majority of XRP and is selling it in scheduled allotments. This arrangement has led some observers to view XRP more similar a company's stock than a currency.

In social club to make up one's mind whether XRP is a security, the Southern District of New York will apply what is known as the "Howey test"-a test developed by the U.s. Supreme Court in 1946 in SEC v. W.J. Howey Co., 328 U.S. 293 (1946)-to evaluate whether sure transactions authorize every bit "investment contracts." Under the Howey Test, a transaction is an investment contract if: (1) it is an investment of coin; (2) there is an expectation of profits from the investment; (3) the investment of money is in a common enterprise; and (4) any profit comes from the efforts of a promoter or third party. The first prong of the Howey test is typically satisfied in an offering and auction of a digital asset because the digital nugget is purchased or otherwise acquired in commutation for value, whether in the course of currency or other consideration. Farther, in evaluating digital assets, courts take typically found that a "mutual enterprise" exists. Therefore, the chief issues in analyzing a digital asset nether the Howey Test are whether there is an expectation of profits from the investment and whether those profits come from the endeavor of a promoter or tertiary party.

In determining whether a reasonable expectation of profits exists, the SEC has issued guidance stating that the more of the following characteristics that are present, the more likely it is that there is a reasonable expectation of turn a profit:

  • The digital asset gives the holder rights to share in the enterprise's income or profits or to realize gain from capital appreciation of the digital nugget;
  • The digital nugget is transferable or traded on or through a secondary market or platform, or is expected to be in the future;
  • Purchasers would reasonably expect that a promoter or tertiary political party's efforts would result in capital appreciation of the digital asset and therefore be able to earn a return on their purchase;
  • The digital nugget is offered broadly to potential purchasers as compared to being targeted to expected users of the appurtenances or services or those who have a need for the functionality of the asset;
  • In that location is footling credible correlation between the purchase / offering price of the digital asset and the market price of the particular goods or services that can be caused in exchange for the digital asset;
  • A promoter or third party has raised an amount of funds in excess of what may be needed to establish a functional network or digital asset;
  • A promoter or 3rd party is able to benefit every bit a result of holding the same class of digital avails as those being distributed to the public;
  • A promoter or tertiary party continues to expend funds from proceeds or operations to heighten the functionality or value of the network or digital asset; and
  • The digital nugget is marketed, directly or indirectly, using the expertise of a promoter or third party, based on the future (and not present) functionality of the digital asset, based on promises to build a business or performance versus currently bachelor goods, and promising appreciation in value.

In evaluating whether any turn a profit comes from the efforts of a promoter or third party, the SEC has issued guidance stating that the research into whether a purchaser is relying on the efforts of others focuses on two key bug: (1) does the purchaser reasonably wait to rely on the efforts of a promoter or third party; and (2) are those efforts the undeniably significant ones (including the essential managerial efforts which touch the failure or success of the enterprise) every bit opposed to efforts that are more ministerial in nature.

If a digital asset has the same characteristics, it is highly probable that the SEC will consider it to exist a security bailiwick to the SEC's registration requirements. Indeed, it appears that the SEC views most cryptocurrencies as securities. However, the SEC has provided some guidance on the characteristics of digital assets which are less probable to be considered securities. In detail, digital avails with the following characteristics are less likely to meet the Howey test:

  • The distributed ledger network and digital asset are fully developed and operational.
  • Holders of the digital asset are immediately able to use information technology for its intended functionality on the network, especially where there are born incentives to encourage such use.
  • The digital assets' creation and construction is designed and implemented to meet the needs of its users, rather than to feed speculation as to its value or development of its network.
  • Prospects for appreciation in the value of the digital asset are limited. For instance, the design of the digital asset provides that its value will remain constant or even degrade over time, and, therefore a reasonable purchaser would non be expected to hold the digital asset for extended periods as an investment.
  • With respect to a digital nugget referred to equally a virtual currency, it tin immediately be used to brand payments in a wide variety of contexts, or acts equally a substitute for fiat currency.
  • Any economic do good that may exist derived from appreciation in the value of the digital asset is incidental to obtaining the right to apply information technology for its intended functionality.
  • The digital nugget is marketed in a manner that emphasizes the functionality of the digital asset, and not the potential for the increase in market value of the digital nugget.
  • Potential purchasers have the ability to use the network and use (or accept used) the digital asset for its intended functionality.
  • Restrictions on the transferability of the digital asset are consistent with the asset's use and not facilitating a speculative market.

Substantially, the SEC'southward guidance provides that the Howey exam may be avoided where in that location is a specific use instance for a digital asset and the nugget has limited prospects for appreciation-characteristics which are not nowadays in the vast majority of cryptocurrencies. Indeed, most crypto developers create their digital nugget first and develop a use case after introducing the nugget. This approach probable results in the creation of an asset that will violate SEC regulations in the upshot that the asset is non registered. Although the SEC's example against Ripple is ongoing, information technology will likely provide additional insight every bit to how the factors set forth in Howey should be applied to digital assets. But given the numerous regulations that may utilize, developers should coordinate with counsel to avoid violations of SEC requirements, money transfer regulations and the other laws that may apply to their digital creations.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject area matter. Specialist communication should be sought about your specific circumstances.