Quick walkthrough of today's SEC crypto FAQ: 1.1 A token can separate from its investment contract without the network meeting the SEC's definitions of functional or decentralized. What matters is whether you did what you said you'd do, as you defined it. (which runs the risk of disincentivizing disclosure, as others like @lex_node suggested) 1.2 A typical staking receipt token is either a receipt for a digital commodity or a digital commodity itself. Either way, it's not subject to an investment contract in the described situations. 1.3 A staking receipt token is different from traditional financial instruments because it doesn't transfer ownership or control. It's just evidence (that the asset is yours). 2.1 If you want to avoid investment contract status, don't promote the potential for profits. Beyond that, "potential utility, features, and capabilities with indefinite aspirational statements likely would not, without more," put you within the securities regulatory perimeter. 👀 2.2 If OpCo B assumes Issuer A's promises to further the network, the token stays subject to the investment contract (not sure what suffices as "assume" in this case) 2.3 What can projects do after functionality without re-engaging in the essential managerial efforts? "Secure, maintain, improve, or enhance such a system or its functionality, or to facilitate network effects, whether through sponsoring or funding development projects or other similar activities." 2.4 You can make new statements about your network once it is functional* and has no central party without creating a new investment contract, in most cases. *(defined in FN49 of March guidance as "the system’s native crypto asset can be used on the system in accordance with the programmatic utility of the system.") 2.5 So long as the network is functional* (see above), announcing a buyback is not an essential managerial effort. If not yet functional, pitching buybacks can be essential managerial efforts. 2.6 Secondary trading platforms of crypto assets are not promoters under securities law unless they meet the Rule 405 requirements (in the second screenshot)

T minus 7

Letters of marque and reprisal might be our best chance against cybercrime. I spoke with security and legal experts, plus former DOJ and military for this @LawofCodeFM episode on cyber letters of marque. Featuring @ARedbord of TRM, @perkinscr97 of Franklin Crypto, @_mwc of Solana Foundation, @NelsonMRosario of Rosario Tech Law, and Camelia Lopez Shoemaker of Holland & Knight. This covers the role of these letters in the American Revolution, privateers, prize courts and a White House memo that trends toward implementing a modern version for cyberspace. Timestamps: 0:00 The $200 billion problem 2:16 The Model T and the FBI 4:18 Pig butchering 7:03 History 7:50 The high seas and the internet 8:30 Marque vs. reprisal 11:35 American Revolution 14:08 Building a (private) navy 17:25 The Constitution 18:40 The Paris Declaration 20:34 Pirates or privateers? 22:12 The five-part system 22:40 Why government can't scale 23:30 The Fourth Amendment 25:26 Suspicious Activity Reports 28:23 Recent memorandum 30:40 The bond 32:34 The blockchain 33:49 Latest from U.S. gov't 34:56 The attribution problem 36:30 Who's involved today? 37:49 The Beacon Network 39:16 Pre-clearance and due process 41:10 Reporting cybercrime 44:26 International law Thank you to the presenting sponsor of this episode, @altitude. Nothing in this podcast is legal or investment advice.

Strong liability enforcement could be helpful in the AI debate. If your agent swarm goes rogue, you’re liable. If your weakly protected model gets jailbroken, you’re liable. If you serve a weakly protected OSS model, you’re liable.

Enjoyed this conversation with @_jikim on why America needs the CLARITY Act and what he's learned about advocacy as CEO of @crypto_council. 0:00 Intro 0:30 How advocacy has evolved 2:04 The pitch to Congress 3:44 The global race to the top 4:52 Second-mover advantage 6:52 Is AI crowding out crypto 7:45 Updated text 9:20 Life of a staffer 10:51 Ji's career 12:30 Managing competing interests 13:49 Bitcoin beers and the Satoshi whitepaper 15:18 Why we're both optimists Recorded yesterday at the Solana Summit in Washington, DC.

EA AI safetyism increasingly looks like Marxism-Leninism for the algorithmic age. The old vanguard claimed privileged knowledge of the inevitable course of History. The new one claims privileged knowledge of the probabilistic course of Humanity. Both use an elaborate intellectual framework to reach the same political conclusion: a small group of enlightened people must constrain everyone else for their own good. That has never lead to anything except monumental human suffering.

New @LawofCodeFM podcast: Vaults. What they are, how they've evolved and how they might be regulated. You'll hear from experts @AndreCronjeTech, @adcv_, @CharlieStLouis, @NYcryptolawyer, @TuongvyLe12, @RSSH273 and @LindaJeng1, as well as SEC Commissioner @HesterPeirce. Timestamps: 0:00 Intro 4:27 What is a vault? 9:34 History of onchain vaults 11:55 The first vault 21:05 SEC's early interest 22:30 Investment contracts & Howey 31:28 Notes & Reves 37:10 The strategist 48:54 The curator 58:30 Investment company? 1:12:40 Investment adviser? 1:20:00 Separately managed accounts 1:30:30 Custody rules 1:55:43 What's next Thank you to the presenting sponsor of this episode, @altitude. Nothing in this podcast is legal or investment advice