> I do not agree that pre-selling a purely functional token is necessarily an offering of securities under Howey or otherwise
Are you a lawyer? Because it wasn't the opinion of the author; it was the opinion of their lawyers.
> offering it to the public is not "securities fraud" in and of itself.
Right. In the US, you can abide by the new-ish JOBS act for crowdfunding from non-accredited investors. You'd be selling a security. The problem with token sales is that they are trying _not_ to be securities. This may not be "fraud", but it is likely in violation of securities laws.
> this article is not useful to anyone else trying to make a similar decision.
The takeaway is that no project going forward should do a pre-functional token sale.
Are you a lawyer? Because it wasn't the opinion of the author; it was the opinion of their lawyers.
> offering it to the public is not "securities fraud" in and of itself.
Right. In the US, you can abide by the new-ish JOBS act for crowdfunding from non-accredited investors. You'd be selling a security. The problem with token sales is that they are trying _not_ to be securities. This may not be "fraud", but it is likely in violation of securities laws.
> this article is not useful to anyone else trying to make a similar decision.
The takeaway is that no project going forward should do a pre-functional token sale.