The SEC Thinks Crypto Airdrops Are Securities. Here's Why This Lawyer Thinks It's Wrong - Ep. 707
Sep 20, 2024
auto_awesome
Amanda Tuminelli, Chief Legal Officer of the DeFi Education Fund, joins Republican Representatives Tom Emmer and Patrick McHenry to discuss the SEC's controversial stance on airdrops. Tuminelli argues that the SEC has overreached its definition of 'compensation' and explains the implications of their shifting language on crypto regulations. She reveals insights on their lawsuit against the SEC and suggests potential Congressional questions for Gary Gensler. The discussion highlights the confusion surrounding crypto assets and the need for clearer regulations.
Amanda Tuminelli argues that the SEC's interpretation of airdrops as securities stretches the legal definition of compensation too far, causing confusion.
The ongoing litigation and regulatory ambiguity surrounding airdrops threaten innovation in the U.S. crypto landscape, prompting calls for clearer guidelines from the SEC.
Deep dives
Legal Perspectives on Airdrops as Securities
The recent letter by Republican representatives to the SEC chair emphasizes the contentious view of airdrops as securities offerings. The SEC argues that even free airdrops may qualify as securities if recipients engage in promotional activities, thus requiring an investment of time or effort. This interpretation draws from past cases where such activities were seen as compensation, despite the lack of monetary investment from participants. Current legal battles, including one involving a company seeking to clarify that its airdrop is not a securities transaction, highlight the ambiguity and complexities surrounding airdrop regulations.
Ongoing Litigation and SEC's Evolving Position
The ongoing lawsuit pursued by the DeFi Education Fund seeks to clarify whether a free airdrop of tokens constitutes a securities offering. As litigation progresses, the court's decisions will significantly shape interpretations of regulatory stances regarding digital assets. The SEC has faced challenges in asserting that tokens are securities in various cases, causing them to revise their communications about token classifications. Continued legal developments indicate a potential shift in regulatory approaches, particularly regarding how the SEC interprets its own past enforcement actions.
Impacts of Regulatory Decisions on Crypto Projects
The uncertainty surrounding SEC regulations leads to concerns about the future of crypto projects, particularly regarding airdrop distribution. Many projects are reluctant to restrict U.S. users due to fear of regulatory repercussions but face pressure to comply with unclear regulations. There's a growing sentiment that the U.S. might lose innovation to other regions if regulatory clarity does not improve, with potential moves of projects to overseas jurisdictions becoming a real possibility. This environment raises fundamental questions about the role of the SEC and Congress in defining regulatory frameworks for the evolving crypto landscape.
Calls for Clarity in Regulatory Frameworks
Amidst various court cases, there are calls for clearer definitions of what constitutes a crypto asset security and who should be required to register under SEC regulations. Stakeholders are urging the SEC to define its terms more clearly and engage with industry players to ensure that regulatory actions do not stifle innovation. As courts continue to respond to the SEC's positions, outcomes are likely to vary by jurisdiction, emphasizing the need for consistency in regulatory enforcement. Future leadership changes within the SEC and Congressional actions may guide the trajectory of crypto regulation, influencing future engagements between regulators and the industry.
This week, Republican Representatives Tom Emmer and Patrick McHenry sent a letter pressing SEC Chair Gary Gensler for clarity on how securities laws apply to airdrops.
With billions of dollars worth of tokens airdropped this year alone, projects need clarity more than ever.
In this episode, Amanda Tuminelli, Chief Legal Officer of the DeFi Education Fund, dissects the SEC’s stance on airdrops, why her organization believes the SEC has stretched the legal definition of “compensation” too far, and what Congress might ask Gensler in his upcoming hearing.
Plus, she talks about how the SEC “regrets” any confusion it caused for using the term “crypto assets securities,” since the agency now admits that tokens themselves are not securities.
Show highlights:
Why Amanda believes the SEC’s position on airdrops doesn’t make sense
Why the DeFi Education Fund sued the SEC over the BEBA airdrop
How the SEC’s position on airdrops has been clear for a while, but is “wrong” according to Amanda
Her take on users bypassing the geographic restrictions to claim airdrops in the U.S.
How and why the SEC has changed its language around “crypto assets securities”
How the SEC’s new position on crypto assets implicating securities laws seems to rest on the “embodiment” theory
Why Amanda believes the Supreme Court or Congress may be needed to step in
What Amanda expects Congress to question Gary Gensler about in the hearing next week
Amanda’s takeaways from the first Congressional DeFi hearing last week
How she expects the presidential election will impact the regulatory landscape in the U.S.
Visit our website for breaking news, analysis, op-eds, articles to learn about crypto, and much more: unchainedcrypto.com