Book Description

Initial Coin Offerings (ICOs) have been gaining popularity as an alternate way of funding through the issuance of tokens on a blockchain network. While this new technology has the potential to fundamentally alter the way in which the capital market operates, there is a lot of confusion as to what a token actually is and how it should be regulated. Since the tokens used in ICOs come in a variety of shapes and sizes, their status under securities laws is often unclear. For this reason, this paper will investigate whether different types of tokens used in ICOs fall under the definition of a security under Swiss, EU, and U.S. securities laws in order to ultimately determine how they should be regulated in the U.S. Based on legal analysis, we find that while the three nations define a security differently, they all struggle to set the boundaries in the case of utility tokens. Whereas Switzerland has the clearest regulation in this regard, U.S. securities laws are by far the most ambiguous when it comes to defining the legal status of a utility token. Finally, for tokens that meet the definition of a security, this paper argues that current securities regulations in the U.S. are not apt for facilitating the growth of ICOs. Therefore, the Securities and Exchange Commission should: (1) provide more clarity as to how they will regulate token sales, (2) create a safe harbor for token exchanges, and (3) create an exemption for token sales. Not doing so would prompt issuers from leaving to another jurisdiction which would make ICOs harder to regulate, chill innovation, and cause the U.S. to lose their spot as a global hub for this new form of raising capital.