cheerup domain was triggered too early. This is usually an indicator for some code in the plugin or theme running too early. Translations should be loaded at the init action or later. Please see Debugging in WordPress for more information. (This message was added in version 6.7.0.) in /home/keepcalmnprofit/public_html/wp-includes/functions.php on line 6114Jennifer J. Schulp<\/a> and Jack Solowey<\/a>\n<\/p>\n What do Yankees tickets<\/a> and Pok\u00e9mon cards<\/a> have in common? If you guessed wish list items for elementary school kids, you wouldn\u2019t be wrong. But another thing they share is that Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Chairman Gary Gensler has been asked to opine on whether they are securities during congressional testimony.<\/p>\n To most people, the answer to that question seems easy: Pok\u00e9mon cards aren\u2019t traded on the New York Stock Exchange\u2014and neither are Yankees tickets\u2014so they must be different from securities like Walmart or Tesla stock, right? That\u2019s hardly a technical analysis (and decidedly not legal advice), but it reveals a piece of common sense underlying our intuitions about securities laws: If we buy something that has some use\u2014even if we hope that it may become more valuable\u2014it is usually not treated as a security subject to all of the rules and regulations that go along with offering and trading investment assets.<\/p>\n But, in yet another example of Gensler\u2019s expansive view of SEC jurisdiction<\/a>, his answers to Rep. Ritchie Torres (D\u2011NY) on whether items like Pok\u00e9mon cards and baseball tickets are securities were not definitive and seemed to rest on an incoherent theory that takes into account whether the assets are in some way stored on a blockchain<\/a>. That doesn\u2019t sound like the \u201ctechnology neutral<\/a>\u201d regulator the SEC claims to be.<\/p>\n Unfortunately, this isn\u2019t just the idle musing of an agency head dreaming of enlarging its fiefdom. The SEC has settled several actions asserting that NFTs<\/a> (i.e., non-fungible tokens) granting holders certain rights to digital art and exclusive restaurant access were unregistered securities. (The SEC has also issued a Wells Notice, indicating that it intends to file an enforcement action, against a platform that facilitates<\/a> NFT trading.)<\/p>\n The stated rationale for these actions is that purchasers of the NFTs were led to expect profits<\/a> when the token appreciated in value based on the efforts of the NFT issuer. In the Commission\u2019s view, this ostensibly meets the criteria set out by the Supreme Court<\/a> for when something qualifies as an investment contract subject to SEC jurisdiction. But as SEC Commissioner Mary Uyeda<\/a> has noted, considering \u201cany item sold whose value is based on the efforts of others\u201d to be a security \u201cwould appear to scope in many common transactions in the non-digital world, including pre-purchase commitments, collectibles, art, and land.\u201d That\u2019s exactly what the SEC appears to be doing.<\/p>\n NFTs are unique digital tokens<\/a> that typically are employed to represent (though not necessarily legally confer) ownership of a physical or digital asset. NFTs and cryptocurrencies use the same underlying blockchain technology, but they differ in important respects, most notably in that cryptocurrencies are fungible\u2014meaning that two units of the same cryptocurrency are interchangeable\u2014whereas NFTs are not.<\/p>\n While in one sense NFTs can be thought<\/a> of as assets themselves, they also can be thought of as something like \u201ccertificates of authenticity\u201d that provide a way of verifying that the NFT holder has an ownership claim, access right, or connection to another asset or file that the NFT is linked<\/a> to (such as a piece of art, digital content, or membership pass). However, the legal rights of a token holder, such as intellectual property and other ownership rights, cannot be assumed based on possession of the token alone and may require reference<\/a> to additional off-chain legal frameworks.<\/p>\n NFTs can serve a variety of functions<\/a>, such as representing ownership of real-world or digital assets like art, facilitating benefits like access to a real-world or digital social club or automated royalty payments<\/a>, or eligibility for discounts associated with customer loyalty rewards, to name a few. Buyers of NFTs may want to collect them, receive the benefits associated with them, or speculate that their future value may rise.<\/p>\n But the fact that someone buys something in hopes that it will appreciate\u2014like a Pok\u00e9mon card collector or reseller of Yankee playoff tickets\u2014does not turn the item into a security<\/a>. Where an item has a use unconnected to its appreciation in value, as many NFTs do, it\u2019s even easier to see this because a purchaser may not intend to use the item as an investment.\u00a0<\/p>\n The securities laws evolved<\/a> in no small part to address the risks posed to investors by a managerial body\u2019s ability to possess information that investors do not and that body\u2019s capacity to act at odds with investors\u2019 best interests. Yet, as SEC Commissioners Hester Peirce and Mark Uyeda recognized when dissenting from the Commission\u2019s settlement<\/a> with Flyfish Club, LLC\u2014which offered NFTs that granted holders access to its restaurant\u2014this type of securities analysis is \u201cinapt because holders of Flyfish NFTs had a reasonable expectation of obtaining wonderful culinary experience and other exclusive member experiences<\/em> based on the managerial and entrepreneurial efforts of Flyfish and its principals. Whether their expectations will be met should not be judged by a securities regulator\u201d (emphasis added).<\/p>\n The SEC claims to be looking at the \u201ceconomic reality<\/a>\u201d of the NFT offering to determine that it falls within the securities laws. But as Commissioners Peirce and Uyeda remarked<\/a> when dissenting from the settlement with Stoner Cats 2, LLC<\/a>, which sold NFTs connected to digital art (of stoned cats): \u201cThe Stoner Cats NFT purchasers received what they paid for\u2014a still image of a character from the series, access to all six episodes of the Stoner Cat series, and the excitement of being part of a popular phenomenon.\u201d This economic reality isn\u2019t enough to bring a project within the SEC\u2019s jurisdiction because, if it was, every sale of fine art would fall within the SEC\u2019s purview\u2014something that the SEC has acknowledged<\/a> is not the case.\u00a0<\/p>\n That\u2019s not to say that NFTs can never fall within the ambit of the securities laws but rather that it is far from a given that any particular NFT does. The SEC\u2019s jurisdictional grabs\u2014from collectibles to digital art markets to social club memberships\u2014deter artists and other creatives from experimenting with methods to monetize their work. Uncertainty about whether they will face an SEC investigation may chill experimentation, in part by prohibitively raising costs related to legal counsel (or more proactively, for taking legal action<\/a> against the SEC for clarity).\u00a0<\/p>\n