@encoreagain123 @kifakrec @SECGov Better question might be "what government agency reviewed Unicoin and determined that it was 'OFFICIALLY A NON SECURITY'".
English
James Farrell
5.6K posts
James Farrell
@Farrell1969
Crypto lawyer, but not your lawyer. Former AscendEX/ Paxful/SEC / Tweets are mine, not legal advice, etc.
Katılım Eylül 2009
226 Takip Edilen656 Takipçiler
May 2025: the @SECGov charges Unicoin and its top executives for fraud.
December 2025: Crypto media runs an undisclosed sponsored content for Unicoin, disguised as a "Press Release".
Nobody checks.
Tal Shmuel Harel@TalHarelTal
Crypto has a "credibility for sale" problem, and it’s costing founders their reputations. We analyzed 2,893 press releases over four months to see how the "wire service" machine actually works. The results were worse than we thought: 62% of crypto press releases come from projects flagged as high-risk or outright scams. Here is how the crypto press release distribution industry is laundering reputation.
English
@Belisarius2020 @Kashta9 The guidance provides that the token can be deemed no longer part of an IC when such reps are no longer relied on or issuer publicly renounced any intent to perform such efforts (or is unable to perform such efforts) in the future. Going bankrupt pretty much fits that bill.
English
@Kashta9 But do you dispute my assertion that LBC was as much a commodity in 2021 as 2026. In terms of fairness, I’m not really talking about whether it is strictly legally fair but whether the decision is equitable and the outcome of LBRY being financially ruined.
English
Totally
read the footnote 51 to the SEC document.
A company was financially ruined and jobs and wealth destroyed for selling an asset the SEC now considers to be a commodity and at a time when there was genuine uncertainty about how securities laws applied to crypto.
The case added nothing to the public good. If it protected the public from anything it was from the benefits of innovation.
The SEC now classifies LBC as a commodity as it derives its value from the programmatic operation of functional
Crypto system and supply and demand dynamics and not the managerial efforts of others which is just as true now as when the SEC urged the court to find that investors expected profits from the efforts of LBRY Inc. And the court made that finding.
I will always remember the great fight by LBRY against all odds and how @JohnEDeaton1 stepped in at one point to help LBC holders. I will always admire and respect that guy. He knew it was unfair.
Wonder what @LBRYcom and @jeremykauffman think when they see this footnote
Micah Paul ™️@MicahPW20
@Belisarius2020 It’s fucked up what they did to @LBRYcom
English
@Belisarius2020 @Kashta9 Would a reasonable investor be relying on efforts of others when issuer tells them “the long-term value proposition of LBRY is tremendous, but also dependent on our team staying focused on the task at hand: building this thing.”
English
@hoffmang One of the exceptions where Younger does not apply is where the state crim proceeding is retaliatory for filing in fed court and/or not in good faith.
Really hard here where AZ sends C&D and it is K who is doing a retaliatory/pre-emptive filing to pick venue.
English
@hoffmang For the Kalshi case, they had to know it was going to happen. They got a cease & desist type letter from AZ saying "stop breaking the law or we will indict you." K then ran to fed court to enjoin AZ. K knew (or should know) response would be AZ file in state court as promised
English
@Belisarius2020 If an element of her IC analysis is that the issuer must be directly receiving the $ (and the buyer know this) then under what circumstances can an exchange transaction between Bob & Alice ever be an IC? Footnote notwithstanding.
English
@Belisarius2020 She found that it’s not an IC when the issuer dumps on retail thru an exchange bc retail doesn’t know it’s giving its $ to the issuer & issuer doesn’t make express promises to the retail buyer on opp side of that specific tranx as part of that sale.
English
So Judge Torres’ reasoning in SEC v. Ripple about XRP was 100% correct and is now accepted by the SEC in relation to most cryptos.
And Michael Saylor was dead wrong saying all cryptos except Bitcoin were securities. Not that he even believed his own statements on this issue.
What else is he wrong about.
Eleanor Terrett@EleanorTerrett
🚨JUST IN: The @SECGov and @CFTC have issued joint, Commission-level interpretive guidance outlining how federal securities laws apply to certain crypto assets and transactions. This follows a submission to OIRA earlier this month signaling the agencies’ intent, and was approved by all three SEC commissioners (Atkins, Peirce, Uyeda) as well as @ChairmanSelig. The guidance establishes a token taxonomy and addresses how activities like staking, mining, airdrops, and wrapping are treated under existing law. Notably, SEC Chair @SECPaulSAtkins says it reflects that most crypto assets are not themselves securities and that investment contracts can come to an end. While interpretive guidance doesn’t change the law, it reflects how regulators intend to apply it, giving the market a clearer directional signal. Separately, this is distinct from the SEC’s still-pending rulemaking on crypto asset offerings.
English
@Belisarius2020 That distinction goes back to Castel in Telegram years before. Her “innovation” - which no one followed but bailed out Ripple - was secondary market sales can never be ICs. The guidance today says that is flat out legally wrong - the same position the SEC took in its appeal.
English
@Farrell1969 I did not say that and I don’t say that. I stated that the reasoning of Judge Torres concerning the nature of the token itself is consistent with the SEC’s current position published today.
English
@mikekatz29 Bigger issue then might not be “who is the issuer” but rather “it’s brutal that exchanges have to do continual due diligence on every token on its platform since it faces strict liability for not immediately delisting the second that happens”
English
Biggest gap: revenue-sharing governance tokens and the fee-switch problem.
What happens when a token legitimately separates, and then a DAO votes to route protocol revenue to holders?
Who is the "issuer" when a DAO made the decision?
This will be among the most litigated questions in the next cycle.
English
The SEC just released the most important piece of U.S. crypto regulatory guidance ever produced. 68 pages. 148 footnotes. A 5-category token taxonomy. Safe harbors for staking, mining, wrapping, and airdrops. And a separation doctrine that changes how every token deal gets structured.
Initial takeaways in this thread. Full analysis in my article below.
English
@Belisarius2020 If you read the SEC’s brief I don’t see how you would say that the facts regarding Ripple’s efforts in 2013-2020 aren’t consistent w/ SEC’s current taxonomy of an IC at that time. Calling it a digital commodity in 2026 is not inconsistent with that.
storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…
English
@Farrell1969 My comment was clearly limited to her finding on the nature of the token itself
English
@encoreagain123 @murtuza_merc @Unicoin_News @AKonanykhin Applying the reasonable investor test, "+$3B" equals:
a. "in excess of 3 billion US dollars" or
b. "less than 110 million US dollars but when you translate it to unicoins which have not yet been issued at some price we make up it is 3 billion of them."
b is a tough sell.
English
@Farrell1969 @murtuza_merc @Unicoin_News @AKonanykhin Yep contingent deals valued in Unicoins at strike price at time of agreements -to fuel marketing of the token. Justice will prevail
English
.@Unicoin_News is performing a high stakes pivot to survive the 2026 regulatory landscape.
In a conversation with me, CEO .@AKonanykhin explains why the project is walking away from its $3.5 billion asset backed identity. It is a brutal trade off.
You can have real world backing or you can have exchange liquidity, but the new SEC rules under Paul Atkins make it almost impossible to have both.
We dig into the transition to the Unicoin Foundation and whether this is genuine decentralization or a strategic shield against security classification.
Konanykhin is betting that a community led model is the only way to avoid a death sentence from the enforcement division.
Key topics in our discussion:
Why being asset backed is now a liquidity trap
The ongoing legal war with the remnants of the Gensler era
How the foundation plans to defend a 100 dollar price target
Stay tuned for the full conversation!
English
@encoreagain123 @murtuza_merc @Unicoin_News @AKonanykhin Feb 28, 2024: “By now we have $1.5 billion in real estate assets backing the regulated, transparent coin that we built under SEC regulation.”
July 3, 2024: ““[W]e have +$3B in real estate assets backing Unicoin!”
English
@encoreagain123 @murtuza_merc @Unicoin_News @AKonanykhin Or does it even have the $150MM Unicoin received from investors who bought the rights associated with the "$3 billion" in real estate?
It would be a confession that SEC is right that Unicoin lied.
And not asset backed is what Unicoin said in SEC testimony was plan all along.
English
@encoreagain123 @murtuza_merc @Unicoin_News @AKonanykhin If you have an insolvent company (Unicoin), it cannot transfer assets to a "Foundation" it does not own for no consideration. It would have to be an arms length transaction.
Does Foundation have "$3 billion" in cash that Unicoin told investors these assets were worth?
English