Blockstack’s CEO looks to build a new framework for crypto securities
Published
2 Wochen ago
on
By
You could argue that the crypto industry should be crowdsourcing Blockstack’s legal expenses.
Blockstack’s trailblazing work with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the initial coin offering (ICO) for its native Stacks (STX) tokens made headlines in mid-2019. On Monday, Cointelegraph reported on Blockstack’s legal analysis that said that upon the launch of its 2.0 network next month, Stacks will be sufficiently decentralized to leave the status of a security. Blockstack itself will be rebranding to Hiro Systems to further encourage the independence of Stacks tokens.
To explain a complicated topic quickly, the concept of a “security” in investment is that the value of an asset depends on the work of another party, like stocks, which fluctuate based on a company’s success. Securities are subject to greater scrutiny than, say, commodities like oil or currency trading because that dependence on a third party renders an investor especially vulnerable to fraud or even just lack of information. Consequently, the SEC’s primary demands of firms issuing securities is that they provide regular, accurate information to the public. This is what public reporting means.
Though Blockstack hasn’t yet sent in the exit report that the SEC would need to ok before the firm can stop reporting for Stacks tokens, the recent legal memo is huge news. As Blockstack CEO Muneeb Ali told Cointelegraph of transitioning STX to non-security status, “I think there’s no precedent.”
Before its 2019 offering, Blockstack registered STX as a security under Reg. A+, exempting the firm from full registration and reporting requirements.
Reg. A+ is a product of the Obama-era JOBS Act. Unlike Reg. D, which restricts an offering to “accredited investors” i.e. the very wealthy or demonstrably savvy, anyone can invest in a Reg. A+ offering. The total is, however, capped at $50 million. Though it’s an exemption, the issuing firm still needs to write reports accounting for their security, even if those reports are less comprehensive than a fully publicly traded firm would have to put out.
For STX, specifically, registration as a security means that the token cannot trade on retail crypto exchanges in the U.S., as crypto exchanges do not have the necessary controls on who can and cannot use their platforms, among other limitations. Security tokens do trade in the U.S., but only on STO platforms that are mostly off-limits to the public OR are plagued by low volumes. Ali said:
“A bunch of other exchanges are already trading it internationally, but U.S. people were not able to participate. Now what’s going on is over the last year, given the mission on the project, we’ve also been working on this path of increased decentralization, meaning that there are several other independent entities in the ecosystem.”
Since Blockstack’s offering, the industry has seen what many consider the end of the SAFT framework that hoped to accomplish the same transformation by turning an offering of investment contracts under Reg. D into non-security token distribution — although Filecoin’s recent network launch may disprove this pessimism.
This year has also seen a stalled proposal from SEC Commissioner Hester Peirce for a safe harbor for blockchain networks looking to make such a transformation. Meanwhile, ICOs have ground to a halt.
The situation has been a barrier to Blockstack beyond just getting listed in the U.S. Ali said:
“I know that some people would stay away from the project thinking that there’s uncertainty here. We don’t know if Blockstack will get stuck in securities-land forever right now.”
Referring to Peirce’s proposal, Ali noted that there still needs to be a proper framework for evaluating whether the final token is decentralized:
“Even with some of the safe harbor proposals, like Hester Peirce’s, yes, they’re talking about a safe harbor. But the question still remains that at the end of the safe harbor period, how do you evaluate that this thing is no longer a security?”
This is what is so interesting about what Blockstack is up to. The firm is setting up a framework that, if successful, could function as a viable means of demonstrating decentralization for other projects.
The recent legal memo is using the independence of the new network and its current diverse array of stakeholders to prove that buying STX is no longer an investment in Blockstack. The SAFT framework tried to do something similar by splitting the initial investment from the token that you’d get at the end of the product’s development. Blockstack’s idea here is that you can take the same token and prove that you no longer have a stake in it.
Blockstack’s strategy includes rescinding the firm’s role in mining and, consequently, its ability to make future decisions for the network, in which miners are the ones who vote on protocol changes. It promises: ”PBC will not be a miner, will not provide mining services, and will have no ability to approve or prevent changes to the Stacks Blockchain.”
In response to a question as to trading by Blockstack parties, Ali said: “We can’t trade. We don’t trade. None of our employees trade. We just have our internal trading policy. We don’t do that.” The role of token trading has been extremely controversial in the case of, for example, Ripple’s massive escrow holdings of XRP, a relationship that is also under SEC investigation.
To prove that the network can survive without the firm, the legal memo catalogues the breadth of the ecosystem surrounding Blockstack:
No matter what happens, it’s an interesting sort of analysis to be running. The SEC has made public statements to the effect that a network can theoretically transform from centralized to decentralized. Ethereum is a classic example. The SEC acknowledges that Ether is a commodity, though it’s highly doubtful that the commission would allow the token’s 2014 pre-sale to happen today.
But despite that theoretical authorization, the SEC has been hesitant to sign off on many projects in ways that could be taken as guidelines for other protocols. So what happens after Blockstack submits its exit letter, referring to the recent legal analysis, is entirely the SEC’s decision:
“As of today, we are treating Stacks as a security. So [the memo] is a little bit of a heads-up that these conditions are met. We think that this should not be considered a security anymore. Here’s our legal analysis and we will go ahead and file the exit report. The SEC could theoretically complain when we file the exit report and say, ‘no, you still have reporting requirements’ and we’ll be like, ‘fine.’ We can keep reporting.”
With leadership at the SEC changing in anticipation of the incoming Biden administration, there’s no telling when the SEC will put out a solid response. Ali is hopeful that Blockstack’s work will help give some kind of roadmap to projects that have stalled out, unable to access capital.
New York authorizes first Yen stablecoin operator in the US
Published
13 Minuten ago
on
Dezember 29, 2020
By
New York has given the first authorization to a stablecoin backed by the Japanese Yen to operate in the U.S.
Per a Dec. 29 announcement, the New York Department of Financial Services has granted Japanese firm GMO-Z.com a charter to handle U.S.D. and Yen-backed stablecoins in New York.
Given New York’s status as a global center, the NYDFS is the most prominent state financial regulator in the U.S. It is also one of the most aggressive. A pass to operate in New York often opens up the rest of the country.
GMO’s charter is as a limited liability trust company rather than a full bank, the principle difference being in authorization to handle deposits. While a stablecoin operator typically needs the ability to hold reserves of the pegged asset, GMO’s charter limits its rights to hold other kinds of deposits not central to its ability “to issue, administer, and redeem” its stablecoins.
The right to issue such non-depository charters has been a bone of contention between state regulators like the NYDFS and national banking regulators in the U.S.
GMO president and CEO Ken Nakamura said: “We’re breaking ground with our move to issue the first regulated JPY-pegged stablecoin, which many see as a safe haven asset.”
The NYDFS recently made changes to its famous BitLicense, including a conditional format that buddies up newly licensed firms with existing licensees. The first conditional BitLicense went to PayPal, facilitating the launch of its new crypto services earlier this fall with the help of longstanding licensee Paxos.
India ponders Bitcoin tax law to target $5B market
Published
6 Stunden ago
on
Dezember 29, 2020
By
India’s finance ministry has called for the enactment of Bitcoin (BTC) tax laws in the country. According to the Times of India, the ministry’s Central Economic Intelligence Bureau, or CEIB, recently submitted a draft document that proposes levying an 18% goods and services tax on Bitcoin trading.
CEIB figures put the estimated Bitcoin transaction volume in India at over $5.4 billion. Thus, the proposed 18% tax could see the government earning about $970 million from crypto taxation.
As part of the proposed plan, the CEIB is pushing for virtual currencies to be classified as “intangible assets” to fall under the purview of GST with taxes levied on the profits made from trading.
Reacting to the news, Tanvi Ratna, CEO of Indian crypto policy advisory firm Policy 4.0, tweeted:
“Sadly, this does not necessarily imply that crypto will be legal. Under Indian law, illegal income is also taxable & evading its tax counts as criminal activity.”
Indeed, in 2011, India’s finance ministry provided clarification that tax evasion on illegal sources of income was a criminal offense. At the time, the government was reportedly moving toward reclassifying all forms of tax evasion as criminal offenses.
Apart from the Supreme Court reversing the Reserve Bank of India’s ban against banks servicing crypto exchanges back in March, not much has happened by way of cryptocurrency regulations in the country.
The lack of regulatory clarity is reportedly preventing greater investor involvement in the industry. However, India’s crypto peer-to-peer trading market continued to grow in 2020.
Can blockchain technology make online voting reliable?
Published
21 Stunden ago
on
Dezember 28, 2020
By
The United States Presidential elections on Nov. 3 were contentious to begin with, but unfounded and inaccurate accusations of electoral fraud from the defeated President Trump cast a pall over the whole procedure. Daniel Hardman, chief architect and chief information security officer at self-sovereign identity solution Evernym, thinks blockchain might help voting in general going forward.
“Basically, blockchain can provide a way for voters to be reliably and securely registered to vote, and then when votes are cast, blockchain can be a mechanism for proving that somebody has the right to vote, based on their prior registration,” Hardman told Cointelegraph. “Blockchain can provide some features that would help with auditing a vote in an election,” he added.
Republicans have been hesitant to accept a Biden win, despite the electoral college verifying the results earlier in December. Rationale ranged from accusations of faulty or manipulated voting machines to allegations of falsified ballots appearing en masse at critical voting sites. None of these accusations, however, have stood up in court.
“The recent stuff that we’ve seen with election challenges in Pennsylvania and Arizona and so forth — there are certain features of blockchain that would have made it possible to do more robust auditing,” Hardman said. “You’d basically be able to lay to rest any concerns about tampering and things like that.”
With public blockchains, such as Bitcoin’s (BTC) for example, every transaction is recorded on an immutable public ledger, making audits more foolproof and transparent than centralized or paper-based processes. Applying such technology to voting could achieve similar results for votes.
Although the model appears transparent and unchangeable, how would authorities know if votes came from citizens who only voted one time? “What you want is what’s called end-to-end verification,” Hardman explained. “On the one side, the front side of it is the registration part,” he said, adding:
“You need to know that a person can only register one time and that means that when somebody comes in to register you do the things that you would do in a physical election mechanism today, which is — you check the driver’s license, you see if their picture matches, their signature matches, all that kind of stuff.”
Then, under the hood, the technology ensures each person only a single vote. “On the backend, you prove that for any given registration, you can cast exactly one vote,” Hardman said.
A vastly complex topic calling for varied solutions based on differing threat factors, a blockchain-involved voting system might include specific components for preventing voter fraud and malware, such as biometric-based voter identification. “If you know that, ya know, John Smith from 123 Main Street in Pennsylvania has a particular fingerprint, then it’s pretty hard for somebody else to cast a vote on his behalf,” Hardman explained.
That said, what then stops governments and companies from taking advantage of such personal information for tracking and other usages? Hardman explained China and its COVID prevention measures as an example of privacy infringement. The country has tracked its peoples’ temperatures, matched with their identities and locations, he explained.
“In the case of elections, what you’d like is to separate those two questions,” Hardman said. “The question — is the party that’s trying to cast a vote authorized to do so because they’ve been prior registered in the system — is one question,” he noted. “The question ‘who is this person,’ is a different question,” he explained, adding:
“There are parts of an election where you might want to ask both questions, but there are other parts where you don’t need to ask both, and if you separate those, then you can prevent the government from doing that — from having kind of an apocalyptic surveillance state that knows which vote you cast and when you cast it and stuff like that.”
A key to the problem? A blockchain technology called zero-knowledge proofs, according to Hardman. Zero-knowledge proofs essentially verify a person’s identity without actually revealing their private data. “You ask somebody at registration time to strongly identify, you know, who they are, where they live and so forth, but at the time they cast their vote, what you ask them is to prove that they have the privilege of casting the vote without disclosing who they are,” Hardman explained. “You further ask them to prove that their vote has not already been tracked in the system […] which guarantees that you can’t vote twice.”
Over the past few years, blockchain has gained popularity for its usefulness in a number of mainstream processes, such as supply chain activities.