Paradigm argues that the SEC is not authorized to regulate the secondary market for crypto-assets, since they are not considered investment contracts and do not represent securities transactions.

Veröffentlicht:

Von:

Die Firma Paradigm hat die Befugnis der SEC in Frage gestellt, den Sekundärmarkt für Krypto-Assets zu regulieren. Ihrer Meinung nach sollten nicht alle Wertpapiertransaktionen, die nicht den Kriterien der Agentur entsprechen, reguliert werden. Als Argument stützt sich Paradigm auf eine gründliche Untersuchung von Bundesberufungsfällen, die mit der sogenannten Howey-Frage in Verbindung stehen. Bislang hat kein Gericht entschieden, dass ein in einem Investmentvertrag enthaltener Vermögenswert per Definition eine Sicherheit ist oder dass nachfolgende Übertragungen auf dem Sekundärmarkt als Wertpapiertransaktionen gelten. Das Unternehmen vertritt die Auffassung, dass die SEC nicht befugt ist, Sekundärmärkte für Krypto-Assets zu regulieren, da diese keine Investitionsverträge darstellen …
The paradigm company has questioned the authority of the SEC to regulate the secondary market for crypto-assets. In their opinion, not all securities transactions that do not correspond to the agency's criteria should be regulated. As an argument, paradigm is based on a thorough investigation of federal reference cases that are connected to the so-called Howey question. So far, no court has decided that an asset contained in an investment contract is by definition or that subsequent transfers on the secondary market are considered securities transactions. The company takes the view that the SEC is not authorized to regulate secondary markets for crypto-assets, since they do not represent an investment contracts ... (Symbolbild/KNAT)

The paradigm company has questioned the authority of the SEC to regulate the secondary market for crypto-assets. In their opinion, not all securities transactions that do not correspond to the agency's criteria should be regulated.

As an argument, paradigm is based on a thorough investigation of federal reference cases that are connected to the so-called Howey question. So far, no court has decided that an asset contained in an investment contract is by definition or that subsequent transfers on the secondary market are considered securities transactions.

The company takes the view that the SEC is not authorized to regulate secondary markets for crypto-assets, since they do not represent investment contracts and also do not apply to securities transactions. In a recently published blog post, Paradigm dealt with the complaint of the SEC against Bittrex and the former CEO William Shihara.

In the lawsuit, the SEC claims that Bittrex had operated an unregistered securities exchange, a non -registered broker and a clearing point. However, Paradigm argues that these accusations differ from the previous cases with token sellers in which the agency has regulated fundraising programs based on the Howey test.

With its amicus letter paper, paradigm wants to question the responsibility of the SEC in the Bittrex case and emphasize the need for a clear regulatory framework for the crypto industry. Paradigm emphasizes that regulatory measures in the crypto industry should be based on well -founded legal foundations in order to ensure an adequate balance between innovation and investor protection.