独家演讲全文 | SEC官员称比特币以太坊不是证券，提出6大判断标准

此外，我们认识到，根据联邦证券法，某一特定资产被视为一种证券，有许多含义。例如，我们的贸易、市场和投资管理部门主要关注的是经销商、交易所和基金注册等问题，以及市场操纵、托管和估值等问题。我们理解市场参与者正在努力使他们的服务符合现有的监管框架，我们很高兴继续参与这一过程。

在评估一个数字资产是否作为投资合同，并因此成为证券时，需要考虑哪些因素?

首先，考虑是否有无论是个人、实体还是协调一致的群体等第三方推动了回报的预期。这一问题将取决于具体的事实和情况，而这一清单是说明性的，并非详尽无遗：

1、是否有任何人士或团体赞助或推动数字资产的发行及销售，而这些人或团体的努力在资产的发展、维护及增值方面是否扮演重要角色?

2、该个人或团体是否持有数字资产的股份或其他权益，以促使其增加数码资产的价值?购买者是否会合理地相信这些努力将会进行，并可能使他们在数字资产上的投资获得回报?

3、发起人是否筹集的资金超过了建立一个功能网络所需的资金？如果能筹集到足够资金，是否表明这些资金可以用于支持令牌的价值或增加企业的价值?发起人是否继续从收益或操作中支出资金，以提高令牌运行的系统的功能或价值？

4、购买者是在寻求回报吗?在这方面，是否以合理地价格向公众而不是向网络的潜在用户销售数字资产?

5、《证券法》的保护是否合理?在数字资产中，发起人和潜在购买者/投资者之间是否存在信息不对称？

6、发起人以外的个人或实体是否行使治理权或有意义的影响力?

虽然这些因素在分析任何第三方的角色时都很重要，但是用合同或技术方式来构建数字资产，功能更像消费品，缺乏证券性。我们再次考虑交易的经济实质，但发起人及其顾问应考虑这些和其他可能的特征。

这份清单并不打算能详尽无遗，我也绝不认为需要提出这些因素中的每一个，以证明令牌是不是证券。 该清单旨在促使发起人及其律师进行思考，并开始与员工进行对话 ，它并不意味着是法律分析中所有必要因素的清单。

1.令牌创建是否与满足用户的需求，或者符合预期？

2.独立行为者是否设定了价格，或者支持资产二级市场的或以其他方式影响交易的推动者？

3. 与投资相比，购买数字资产的主要动机是供个人需要或消费？购买者是否就他们的消费意图而不是投资意图作出了陈述？这些令牌是否与消费与投资意图相关的增量可用？

4. 令牌是否以满足用户需求的方式分发？例如，令牌是否可以按照购买者的预期用途进行持有或转让？是否有内置的激励措施可以迫使网络上的令牌迅速使用，例如让令牌随着时间的推移而降低价值，还是令牌可以长时间保持投资？

5. 资产是否销售并分发给潜在用户或公众？

6. 资产是分散在不同的用户基础上，还是集中在少数可以影响其应用程序的人手中？

7. 应用程序是完全运行还是处于开发的早期阶段？

这些都是令人兴奋的法律时期，我很高兴成为这个过程的一部分，可以帮助这种新技术的推动者及其律师应对并遵守联邦证券法。

以下是演讲原文：

Digital Asset Transactions: When Howey Met Gary (Plastic)

Remarks at the Yahoo Finance All Markets Summit: Crypto

Thank you Andy. I am pleased to be here today.[1] This event provides a great opportunity to address a topic that is the subject of considerable debate in the press and in the crypto-community – whether a digital asset offered as a security can, over time, become something other than a security.[2]

To start, we should frame the question differently and focus not on the digital asset itself, but on the circumstances surrounding the digital asset and the manner in which it is sold. To that end, a better line of inquiry is: “Can a digital asset that was originally offered in a securities offering ever be later sold in a manner that does not constitute an offering of a security?” In cases where the digital asset represents a set of rights that gives the holder a financial interest in an enterprise, the answer is likely “no.” In these cases, calling the transaction an initial coin offering, or “ICO,” or a sale of a “token,” will not take it out of the purview of the U.S. securities laws.

But what about cases where there is no longer any central enterprise being invested in or where the digital asset is sold only to be used to purchase a good or service available through the network on which it was created? I believe in these cases the answer is a qualified “yes.” I would like to share my thinking with you today about the circumstances under which that could occur.

Before I turn to the securities law analysis, let me share what I believe may be most exciting about distributed ledger technology – that is, the potential to share information, transfer value, and record transactions in a decentralized digital environment. Potential applications include supply chain management, intellectual property rights licensing, stock ownership transfers and countless others. There is real value in creating applications that can be accessed and executed electronically with a public, immutable record and without the need for a trusted third party to verify transactions. Some people believe that this technology will transform e-commerce as we know it. There is excitement and a great deal of speculative interest around this new technology. Unfortunately, there also are cases of fraud. In many regards, it is still “early days.”

（编辑：核心网）

【声明】本站内容均来自网络，其相关言论仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本站立场。若无意侵犯到您的权利，请及时与联系站长删除相关内容!