A huge number of crypto projects never advertised their tokens as an investment, and explicitly and repeatedly stated that they are not investments and should not be expected to appreciate, yet the SEC still charged them with promoting an unregistered security.
Marketing a token as an investment and selling unregistered securities are two different things. You can do the latter without the former and it's still illegal.
Please read about the Howey test. Saying "its not a security" obviously doesn't matter anymore than if i rob someone and say "not a robbery" during the crime
Just reading this and I don't understand how anyone would say this passes the Howey Test. This is clearly a security. The only possible debate is whether there is an expectation of profit, but I can't see anyone seriously entertaining that debate -- there was an ICO! What do you think the median person buying into that ICO was expecting? "I'm going to spend a few thousands dollars on this token that might have utility in this project in a few years"?? Come on.
This is a token sale. It never called itself an "ICO".
The whitepaper never once claimed the token is expected to profit its owners, and repeatedly warns of the risk of loss. It explicitly says the paper is not an investment prospectus as well.
>>What do you think the median person buying into that ICO was expecting? "I'm going to spend a few thousands dollars on this token that might have utility in this project in a few years"?? Come on.
If it turned out that the median person buying Pokemon cards were doing it for the purpose of deriving a profit, that wouldn't turn Pokemon cards into securities.
