Group items tagged

According to this paper, the key to identifying promising initial coin offerings (ICOs) lies in the language used in the underlying white papers. ICO project owners, who focused on a comprehensive description of the technological core behind their tokens were 20% more likely to obtain funding as well as 40% more likely to list their tokens on CoinMarketCap, one of the leading price-tracking website for crypto-assets. These ICOs saw their prices increase 24% more than average over 300 days after being listed. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3577208

PWC has published a report seeking to provide a strategic perspective on the ICO and STO sectors. The report finds that STOs are not fundamentally different from ICOs, estimating that their combined total raised almost $20 billion during 2018.

A two-phase offering of this kind, whether styled as a SAFT (Simple Agreement for Future Tokens) or otherwise, does not inoculate an ICO or the issuer from the application of the federal securities laws. The SEC examines the facts and circumstances of a token offering at all relevant times, looking to the economic reality of the transaction or transactions, whatever they may be called.

"Although this paper does not assess which method of regulation of ICOs and cryptocurrencies can ultimately be qualified as best strategy, we conclude that a positive and facilitating approach offers more opportunities for investors and innovative companies. However, this approach requires a clear and detailed legislative and regulatory framework for all parties involved in the establishment, issuing, storing or trading of cryptocurrencies and ICOs. Such a framework should at least provide boundaries with regard to money laundering and other common forms of cybercrime. Moreover, it should provide some sort of consumer/investor protection and clarity when it comes to tax liability. A legislative and regulatory framework that provides all these aspects will prevent abuse and may enable governments to intervene when issues occur."

Since ICOs and STOs are clearly here to stay it is worthwhile to take a look at what regulators in Asia are doing in response to this.

Last week the "foundation" behind Kik, the company that raised almost $100m in an ICO in 2017 for the "Kin" token, set up a new website: defendcrypto.org to raise money to "take on" the SEC in court, by fighting against the idea that Kin tokens constitute securities, and arguing instead that they function as a currency.

This paper analyzes the white papers of the fifty top-grossing ICOs of 2017, how the software code controlling the projects' ICOs reflected their disclosures. Most promised forms of investor protection that the code did not deliver and 12 allowed modifications to the way the smart contract worked, but only four of them disclosed that ability.

The initial coin offering (ICO) is all but dead. In terms of money raised the total for 2019 should be around $338 million - or 95% less than in 2018.

To make investors feel comfortable again, we need more than ease and accessibility, that ICOs and IEOs offer. We also need to offer IPO-grade regulation and compliance. But most startups are not able to do that. So what's the middle ground? Well, maybe the solution is STOs, tokenized securities that comply with regulations. But for now STOs are still a hard route, that lacks liquidity and regulatory clarity.

The Tezos Foundation plans to pay $25 million to settle a class-action lawsuit brought by investors claiming the Tezos initial coin offering violated US securities laws. However, according to one report, the settlement "leaves unanswered the underlying legal questions of whether the ICO qualified as a securities offering requiring the Tezos backers to file a registration statement with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, and whether the Breitmans were 'controlling persons' under the Securities Act of 1933."

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission published a new warning against initial exchange offerings (IEOs). According to the notice, IEOs are similar to initial coin offerings (ICOs), many of which the agency has been investigating as unregistered securities offerings over the past several years. While IEO providers may claim their sales are different from ICOs, they may still violate federal securities laws, the SEC said. As such, the agency warned investors to "be cautious" if they are considering investing in an IEO.

IEOs are similar to ICOs in that they offer digital tokens that companies use to raise capital. The only difference is that IEOs are offered via online cryptocurrency exchanges on behalf of companies-usually for a fee. Because of this, they are often touted as a type of new-fangled ICO, which is somehow immune to U.S. securities law-but they are not.  Many of these IEOs fail to comply with federal securities laws and lack proper investor protections, even though the trading platforms may "claim to perform due diligence or other quality assessments," the SEC said."

The U.S. SEC filed a court order on January 2 to compel Telegram to release details of how the funds raised in its $1.7 billion Gram token sale, have been spent. The SEC claims that these records are highly relevant to its ongoing case against Telegram, alleging that the ICO constituted an unregistered securities sale.

The SEC believes Telegram's bank withdrawals will prove the company violated the Regulation D standards in its sale to accredited investors. Specifically, the SEC believes Telegram sold gram tokens after the March 29 ICO cutoff and used underwriters to help sell them. This would nullify the Regulation D exemption, making the 2018 sale illegal.

The Australian Securities and Investment Commission (ASIC) published new initial coin offering (ICO) and cryptocurrency guidelines on its official website on May 30.

According to InWara's quarterly crypto space report the number of ICOs declined by nearly 60% dramatically during Q1 2019, but the number of STOs increased by 130%.

Telegram has filed an order of consent agreeing to provide a trove of communications and documentation requested by the U.S. SEC on May 7. The communications concern the distribution of Telegram's Gram tokens and purchase agreements relating to its 2018 ICO. Telegram's consent comes amid the Free Telegram Open Network community's decision to launch a version of the TON blockchain via a 'fork'.

At least two entities invoiced Telegram for commissions from selling the company's tokens in the summer of 2018, months after the company's initial coin offering (ICO), newly released documents show.

"The JCBA says there is a need to clarify whether security tokens, which are subject to the Financial Instruments and Exchange Act, fall under "Article 2 (1) Securities" or "Article 2 (2) Securities," and suggested the exclusion of security tokens from the Payment Services Act, in order to avoid duplicating regulatory requirements imposed by the Financial Instruments and Exchange Act and the Payment Services Act."