Category Archives: Cryptocurrency Law & Regulation

Simple Agreement for Future Tokens (SAFT)

SAFT Background for Cryptocurrency Funds

As we discussed in a recent post, the SEC Report on the DAO, issued in July of this year, discussed how the SEC views Initial Coin Offerings (ICOs). One key takeaway from this report was that some digital assets/ tokens fall within the definition of securities, depending on the facts and circumstances related to the nature of the particular digital asset/token. If an ICO is considered an offer and sale of a security, then that offering must comply with federal securities laws.  This means the token must either be registered as a security with the SEC or that the token qualifys for an exemption from registration requirements.

In an attempt to comply with SEC regulations and account for some of the uncertainties around regulation of these digital assets, some recent ICOs have launched using a Simple Agreement for Future Tokens (SAFT) along with an accompanying offering memorandum. The SAFT, modeled after Y Combinator’s Simple Agreement for Future Equity (SAFE), is an agreement offering future tokens to accredited investors. Instead of offering an immediately available token, these SAFTs offer the right to a token upon a triggering event. SAFTS are intended to be private offerings exempt from registration with the SEC. Notably, Protocol Labs, Inc. offered the right to purchase Filecoin tokens through a SAFT earlier this year. Since then, multiple other ICOs have launched using SAFTS, including Unikrn, StreamCoin Labs, and Kik Interactive.

Overview of SAFT documentation

As part of some ICO launches, investors are subscribing through a SAFT and accompanying offering memorandum.  The SAFT is an agreement signed by both the issuer and the purchaser of the future tokens. The general SAFT template includes various provisions which we outline below.

  • Country legends – disclaimers directed toward specific countries, including statements on registration and restrictions on transfer of the tokens.
  • Sale information – purchase amount and price, token amounts, and vesting period.
  • Background information – various events including network launch, dissolution events, and termination events are discussed. A network launch will generally trigger an issuance of tokens based on the purchase amount of each investor.
  • Purchaser and Issuer representations – various representations made by both the issuer and purchaser are included. Notably, the purchaser will represent that it has been advised that the SAFT is a security and has not been registered, and cannot be resold without the consent of the issuer. The agreement also includes the procedures for purchase of rights under the SAFT including the form of payment.
  • Miscellaneous/ transfer provisions – various miscellaneous provisions including transfer restrictions and rights under the SAFT.

SAFT Offering Memorandum

The offering memorandum is similar private placement memorandum (PPM) for a traditional hedge fund and provides the prospective investor with information on the structural and business aspects of the offering. Below is a non-exhaustive list of some of the major sections of the offering memorandum:

  • Legends and securities laws notices
  • Table of contents
  • Company overview
  • Description of the directors and management
  • Terms of the purchase rights and the SAFTS
  • Risk factors
  • Description of the use of proceeds
  • Description of the plan of distribution

Potential Issues

There are a number of potential issues, including legal and regulatory, that may arise through the use of SAFTS.

Is a SAFT a security?

The SEC has applied the Howey test to digital assets, concluding that a token may be a security based on specific facts and circumstances. To determine whether tokens are securities, the SEC has looked to whether there is an investment of money in a common enterprise with a reasonable expectation of profits to be derived from the entrepreneurial or managerial efforts of others.

The drafters of SAFTs have generally taken the position that SAFTs are securities (e.g., investment contracts). The SEC has commented in the past on SAFEs with respect to crowdfunding, mentioning that SAFEs are a type of security, warning investors to be cautious. SAFTs that are limited to accredited investors will likely elicit less concern from the SEC as they are not aimed at retail investors. It remains to be seen, however, whether the SEC will also consider SAFTs securities in a similar context with SAFEs. While any determination on whether the SAFT is a security will likely be based on the specific use of the underlying tokens, it seems likely that many SAFTs would be deemed securities because the purchasers are investing money (or other digital assets) in the rights to the future underlying token with the expectation of profits from the efforts of the issuers of the SAFT.

Restrictions on transfer

Under a SAFT, there is typically a restriction on the purchaser’s ability to transfer or make use of the tokens until the tokens are vested. Vesting takes place once the network is launched and the tokens are mined. A purchaser generally can, however, transfer its rights in a SAFT to another person or entity with the consent of the company issuing the SAFT. Below is a non-exhaustive list of some of the major provisions that should be in the transfer agreement.

  • Transfer of the SAFT
  • Consideration
  • Consent of the company that issued the SAFT
  • Transferor representations and warranties that it owns the SAFT and is able to transfer
  • Transferee representations that it will be bound by the terms of the SAFT

Source of funds

Many of these SAFTs allow purchasers to use various forms of consideration for these contracts including US dollars, Bitcoin, and other digital assets. This may raise anti-money laundering concerns around the source of the funds used for these purchases.

How do regulators view SAFTs?

US regulators have not provided specific guidance on the use of SAFTS. As discussed previously, the SEC has stated that some tokens are securities. Additionally, earlier this year, the SEC charged a businessman with allegedly running two fraudulent ICOs and appears to be taking an increasing interest in these issues. The SEC has mentioned the crowdfunding regulations in the SEC Report on the DAO, and the SEC seemed to be highlighting an option for certain fund sponsors. Given also that the SEC has commented on SAFEs with respect to venture and crowdfunding, it is possible that regulators will draw certain parallels between SAFEs and SAFTs in its views on these instruments. Unfortunately, until regulators issue additional guidance, it is not yet clear whether the SAFT in some cases will be sufficient to satisfy the SEC or other regulators.

Looking Forward

The SAFT represents some investment managers’ response to the concerns of the SEC and may encourage more ICOs to be based in the US. We hope the SEC and other regulators comment on their view of SAFTs, although much of the discussion over whether a SAFT or token is a security will remain a facts and circumstances determination.


For more information on this topics related to the digital asset space, please see our collection of cryptocurrency fund legal and operational posts.

Bart Mallon is a founding partner of Cole-Frieman & Mallon LLP.  Cole-Frieman & Mallon LLP has been instrumental in structuring the launches of some of the first cryptocurrency focused hedge funds. For more information on this topic, please contact Mr. Mallon directly at 415-868-5345.

SEC Issues Cryptocurrency/Digital Asset/ICO Report

By: Bart Mallon (Co-Managing Partner of Cole-Frieman & Mallon LLP)

Certain Digital Assets are Securities Based on “Facts and Circumstances”

As has been widely anticipated by the cryptocurrency community, the SEC has finally made an initial declaration of the agency’s view that certain digital assets are securities subject to jurisdiction and regulation by the SEC.  In a series of four items (press release, investigative report, statement and investor bulletin), the SEC comes out with a strong warning to sponsors of Initial Coin Offerings (ICOs) to be careful of the U.S. securities laws.  While many will undoubtedly think the SEC missed a great opportunity to provide robust guidance (and leniency) to the industry, most market participants recognize that this series of discussions was the most likely outcome for many of these instruments (i.e. it is clear that they are securities).  Although it is not perhaps what the industry wanted, we at least have *something* to now go by and the industry can begin to figure out how it will structure itself from here.

Below we provide an overview of the various parts of the release as well as some of our observations.

SEC Four Items

The SEC released the following four items today which we describe in greater depth below:

  1. Press Release 2017-131
  2. Release No. 81207 (report)
  3. Divisions of Corporation Finance and Enforcement Statement (July 25, 2017)
  4. Investor Bulletin: Initial Coin Offerings

Press Release – the release discusses the investigative report it published on The DAO and discusses the investor bulletin created regarding ICOs.  The SEC cautions market participants to make sure they examine their activity with respect to ICOs and other structures built on blockchain and distributed ledger technology.  Most importantly the release states:

In light of the facts and circumstances, the agency has decided not to bring charges in this instance, or make findings of violations in the Report, but rather to caution the industry and market participants:  the federal securities laws apply to those who offer and sell securities in the United States, regardless whether the issuing entity is a traditional company or a decentralized autonomous organization, regardless whether those securities are purchased using U.S. dollars or virtual currencies, and regardless whether they are distributed in certificated form or through distributed ledger technology

SEC Report on the DAO – the report describes the rise and fall of The DAO, discusses how the related facts would be analyzed under the existing securities laws (Howey test), determines that DAO Tokens are securities, and makes the determination that certain “Platforms” are securities exchanges that should be (and should have been) registered with the SEC as securities exchanges.  The report ends by listing a number of SEC enforcement actions involving virtual currencies.  The SEC also provides the following warning to the industry:

Whether or not a particular transaction involves the offer and sale of a security—regardless of the terminology used—will depend on the facts and circumstances, including the economic realities of the transaction. Those who offer and sell securities in the United States must comply with the federal securities laws, including the requirement to register with the Commission or to qualify for an exemption from the registration requirements of the federal securities laws…These requirements apply to those who offer and sell securities in the United States, regardless whether the issuing entity is a traditional company or a decentralized autonomous organization, regardless whether those securities are purchased using U.S. dollars or virtual currencies, and regardless whether they are distributed in certificated form or through distributed ledger technology. In addition, any entity or person engaging in the activities of an exchange, such as bringing together the orders for securities of multiple buyers and sellers using established nondiscretionary methods under which such orders interact with each other and buyers and sellers entering such orders agree upon the terms of the trade, must register as a national securities exchange or operate pursuant to an exemption from such registration.

CorpFin/Enforcement Statement – the statement basically provides an overview of the U.S. securities regulatory framework and describes how the framework of laws and regulations are designed to protect investors.  It discusses the importance of “facts and circumstances” analysis, states that DAO Tokens are securities based on “facts and circumstances” and implores cryptocurrency market participants  to seek counsel from private attorneys or the SEC.  The statement also warns of bad actors and red flags.

Investor Bulletin – provides background on ICOs, discussed various concepts applicable to the digital asset industry (blockchain, virtual currency, virtual currency exchanges, smart contracts), and discusses the crowdfunding regulations.  The bulletin also alerts investors to the issues with getting money back in the event of a scam (tracing issues, international scope of digital assets, the fact there is no central regulator and there is no ability for the SEC to freeze digital assets) and describes the normal things to be careful of that are common in many scams.


The following are some quotes from the various items produced by the SEC which we found interesting, and our thoughts on those quotes.

Press Release

“Those participating in unregistered offerings also may be liable for violations of the securities laws.”

HFLB: we note that the SEC is intentionally being vague when it references “those participating” – this indicates they will be looking at all parties related to a particular transaction, from sponsors to exchanges to other persons within the ICO distribution chain.  

“Additionally, securities exchanges providing for trading in these securities must register unless they are exempt.”

HFLB: here they are basically saying any exchange that DAO Tokens were available on were acting as securities exchanges and needed to be appropriately registered as such.

“The DAO has been described as a “crowdfunding contract” but it would not have met the requirements of the Regulation Crowdfunding exemption because, among other things, it was not a broker-dealer or a funding portal registered with the SEC and the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority.”

HFLB: we find it interesting that the SEC is specifically talking about the crowdfunding regulations.  We think that many ICOs / token sales would be good candidates for these platforms (and some tokens have started in that way) and the SEC seems to be highlighting an option for certain fund sponsors.  Crowdfunding platforms are regulated by the SEC and FINRA (and do not have as onerous requirements as normal securities registration statements) so they may become an acceptable compromise distribution platform for both ICO sponsors and the SEC.

Report on The DAO

“The United States Securities and Exchange Commission’s (“Commission”) Division of Enforcement (“Division”) has investigated whether The DAO, an unincorporated organization; UG (“”), a German corporation;’s co-founders; and intermediaries may have violated the federal securities laws.”

HFLB: the “sponsors” of The DAO were investigated, which is to be expected.  We find it interesting they used the word “intermediaries” which is probably intentionally vague.

“The automation of certain functions through this technology, “smart contracts,” or computer code, does not remove conduct from the purview of the U.S. federal securities laws. This Report also serves to stress the obligation to comply with the registration provisions of the federal securities laws with respect to products and platforms involving emerging technologies and new investor interfaces.” (citations omitted)

HFLB: pretty much what securities lawyers have been saying all along.

“From April 30, 2016 through May 28, 2016, The DAO offered and sold approximately 1.15 billion DAO Tokens in exchange for a total of approximately 12 million Ether (“ETH”), a virtual currency used on the Ethereum Blockchain.” (citations omitted)

HFLB: we believe that the SEC is saying here that Ether is not a security, but is instead a virtual currency.  This is important because it shows that some ICOs or digital assets (like ETH) can be instruments other than securities.

“The Commission is aware that virtual organizations and associated individuals and entities increasingly are using distributed ledger technology to offer and sell instruments such as DAO Tokens to raise capital. These offers and sales have been referred to, among other things, as “Initial Coin Offerings” or “Token Sales.” Accordingly, the Commission deems it appropriate and in the public interest to issue this Report in order to stress that the U.S. federal securities law may apply to various activities, including distributed ledger technology, depending on the particular facts and circumstances, without regard to the form of the organization or technology used to effectuate a particular offer or sale.”

HFLB: unfortunately looking to the “facts and circumstances” is all we have here – the SEC is not going to come out with a list of tokens they think our securities so we have to use the “sniff test” to determine whether any particular token is a security.  The best advice we have here is to look at the Coinbase Securities Law Framework to come up a best guess.

“The Platforms that traded DAO Tokens appear to have satisfied the criteria of Rule 3b-16(a) and do not appear to have been excluded from Rule 3b-16(b). As described above, the Platforms provided users with an electronic system that matched orders from multiple parties to buy and sell DAO Tokens for execution based on non-discretionary methods.”

HFLB: the SEC is putting those website where DAO Tokens were bought/sold on notice that they were operating as a securities exchange.  This will likely give unregistered crypto exchanges pause with respect to many digital asset instruments.

CorpFin / Enforcement Statement

“Market participants in this area must also consider other aspects of the securities laws, such as whether a platform facilitating transactions in its securities is operating as an exchange, whether the entity offering and selling the security could be an investment company, and whether anyone providing advice about an investment in the security could be an investment adviser.”

HFLB: the SEC makes reference to the mutual fund regulations (also applicable to private funds via 3(c)(1) and 3(c)(7) exemptions) as well as the investment advisor regulations, which are applicable to cryptocurrency fund managers.

“Although some of the detailed aspects of the federal securities laws and regulations embody more traditional forms of offerings or corporate organizations, these laws have a principles-based framework that can readily adapt to new types of technologies for creating and distributing securities.”

HFLB: this is exactly why we were surprised that the SEC has not previously issued guidance when it was clear there were other groups who have conducted ICO sales that clearly were securities offerings.  The SEC has had the opportunity (and, really, the obligation) to be enforcing the current securities laws in this space and the SEC has specifically chosen not to.  

“Finally, we recognize that new technologies also present new opportunities for bad actors to engage in fraudulent schemes, including old schemes under new names and using new terminology. We urge the investing public to be mindful of traditional “red flags” when making any investment decision, including: deals that sound too good to be true; promises of high returns with little or no risk; high-pressure sales tactics; and working with unregistered or unlicensed sellers.”

HFLB: we agree.  We fully expect to a number of frauds and other enforcement actions taken with respect to ICOs in the future.

Investor Bulletin

“Although ICOs are sometimes described as crowdfunding contracts, it is possible that they are not being offered and sold in compliance with the requirements of Regulation Crowdfunding or with the federal securities laws generally.”

HFLB: we believe that these various releases will ultimately push more ICOs to look toward crowdfunding platforms for their initial offerings.  We also believe that there is the possibility in the future for some sort of digital asset specific crowdfunding platform or a digital asset broker-dealer.

“Ask what your money will be used for and what rights the virtual coin or token provides to you.  The promoter should have a clear business plan that you can read and that you understand.  The rights the token or coin entitles you to should be clearly laid out, often in a white paper or development roadmap.  You should specifically ask about how and when you can get your money back in the event you wish to do so.  For example, do you have a right to give the token or coin back to the company or to receive a refund? Or can you resell the coin or token? Are there any limitations on your ability to resell the coin or token?”

HFLB: we believe this guidance is not really helpful for many ICO structures.  

“Fraudsters often use innovations and new technologies to perpetrate fraudulent investment schemes.  Fraudsters may entice investors by touting an ICO investment “opportunity” as a way to get into this cutting-edge space, promising or guaranteeing high investment returns.  Investors should always be suspicious of jargon-laden pitches, hard sells, and promises of outsized returns.  Also, it is relatively easy for anyone to use blockchain technology to create an ICO that looks impressive, even though it might actually be a scam.”

HFLB: we agree.  We believe it is highly likely there will be a number of scams that will be perpetuated through ICOs.


This is a first step of sorts toward more robust regulation of the digital assets.  Although we get some insight from the SEC, we don’t really see anything new and we don’t see how the SEC is going to protect the digital asset markets in the U.S.  Instead, this probably plays into fears that the U.S. is not a hospitable jurisdiction to novel ideas and structures and will ultimately push ICOs that would be based in the U.S. to offshore jurisdictions.  We hope the SEC uses these statements as a springboard to a dialogue with the industry to keep (and attract) innovators to the U.S.  More obviously forthcoming…


For more information on this topic, please see our collection of cryptocurrency fund legal and operational posts.

Bart Mallon is a founding partner of Cole-Frieman & Mallon LLP.  Cole-Frieman & Mallon has been instrumental in structuring the launches of some of the first cryptocurrency focused hedge funds. For more information on this topic, please contact Mr. Mallon directly at 415-868-5345.

Cryptocurrency Fund Legal & Operational Posts

The goal of the posts on this page are to address the legal and operational issues applicable to fund managers who invest in the cryptocurrency space.  We believe the emergence of this new asset class gives rise to a need for open discussion of the protocols, operations, industry norms, and best practices (now and in the future) related to investments in this space.  Our goal is to help with that process and we look forward to hearing your feedback on these posts.

Fund Overview

Regulatory Items

Other Resources


Bart Mallon is a founding partner of Cole-Frieman & Mallon LLP.  Cole-Frieman & Mallon has been instrumental in structuring the launches of some of the first cryptocurrency focused hedge funds. For more information on this topic, please contact Mr. Mallon directly at 415-868-5345.

California BitLicense

Overview of the Cryptocurrency Licensing Regime in California

As we discussed in a recent post, New York has already implemented a statute that requires those engaged in certain virtual currency business activities to obtain a license from the state. In a similar fashion, California has proposed A.B. 1123 (the “Bill” or “Virtual Currency Act”)  that would allow the state to begin regulating the industry. This post focuses on California’s proposed version of a “BitLicense”, which like New York, would prohibit a person from engaging in a virtual currency business activity unless they receive a license from California’s Commissioner of Business Oversight (“Commissioner”).

California Virtual Currency Act – A.B. 1123

Pursuant to the Virtual Currency Act, any persons involved in a “virtual currency business” in California must register with the Commissioner.   The Act defines a “virtual currency business” as “maintaining full custody or control of virtual currency in this state on behalf of others.”  The definition of “virtual currency” is very broad (“any type of digital unit that is used as a medium of exchange or a form of digitally stored value”) although there are some carveouts for gaming platforms and for consumer reward programs.

The above definition seems to capture those groups who are offering exchange and wallet services for persons who are buying, selling and holding bitcoin and other digital currencies. Right now we don’t believe that a cryptocurrency hedge fund entity or its manager/general partner would need to obtain the license – a fund would simply be holding virtual currency on behalf of itself and therefore the general partner entity would not need to be registered.  

California Application Process

In the event an entity needs to register, there is an application process where the Commissioner will engage in an extensive review of the applicant’s background and services offered. California would also require an initial $5,000 application fee, a renewal fee of $2,500, and the maintenance of a minimum amount of capital as determined by the Commissioner. The licensee would be required to have an annual audit and would need to provide balance sheets, income statements, and other financial verification forms on a periodic basis.  A provisional license may be granted for a $500 fee to those engaged in a virtual currency business with less than $1,000,000 in outstanding obligations, and if the business model represents a low or no risk to consumers (as determined by the Commissioner). The provisional licensee may also be required to register as a money services business.

Looking Forward

As the definition of a virtual currency business is very broad, this Bill (like a predecessor bill which was abandoned) is heavily opposed by digital non-profit organizations, as well as many others in the space. It is yet to be seen whether this Bill will be passed or amended once again. However, the Bill’s reintroduction does demonstrate that lawmakers are still eager to regulate the industry. If passed, the Virtual Currency Act would become effective July 1, 2018. We will continue to follow the developments surrounding California’s Virtual Currency Act, and any potential impact this may have on investment managers in the state.


Bart Mallon is a founding partner of Cole-Frieman & Mallon LLP. Cole-Frieman & Mallon has been instrumental in structuring the launches of some of the first digital currency-focused hedge funds. For more information on this topic, please contact Mr. Mallon directly at 415-868-5345.

Bitcoin Hedge Fund FAQs

Common Questions Related to Cryptocurrency Funds

[Note: information posted on May 19, 2017.  Certain areas below will be updated periodically and we will update the timing of the information in each particular section.]

We recently wrote an overview of bitcoin/altcoin hedge funds.  That post led to a number of conversations with current and future cryptocurrency managers which yielded a number of questions regarding the business and regulatory issues applicable to these fund structures.  Some of the items we discussed are issues of first impression.  Some of the items probably don’t have “for sure” answers and instead we look to industry best practices for guidance.  While there will be a lot of “grey areas” and “probablys” and “I don’t knows” in this space as the regulators start to become more involved, I have tried my best to address these items below in my answers to these common questions.


Are Bitcoins and other Cryptocurrencies “securities” under the Securities Act of 1933?

Many of the very large cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin and Ethereum are probably not “securities”, and can probably be classified as “digital currencies” for now.  Other cryptocurrencies or tokens would need to be examined on a facts and circumstances basis.  For such an inquiry, I believe the Coinbase Securities Law Framework (See Appendix A) is a great place to start.

Why does it matter?

If a hedge fund invests in or buys a cryptocurrency, and that cryptocurrency is deemed to be a security, then the fund’s management company (general partner) will be, by definition, an investment adviser under federal law and most likely the laws of the state where the management company operates (where the sponsor/owner of the management company is physically located).  If the management company is an investment adviser, then the management company will need to register with the SEC (upon reaching certain asset levels, generally $150M) or with a state securities commission.  Some states may have exemptions from registration, like the Exempt Reporting Adviser (ERA) regime.  (See here for information on the SEC ERA regime and here for California’s ERA regime.)  If a management company registers as an investment adviser or ERA, the manager will be required to have the fund undergo an annual audit, and there will also be a requirement that performance fees be charged only to qualified clients.  Additionally, regardless of manager’s registration status (SEC, state or is an ERA) the manager will be subject to the anti-fraud provisions of Section 206-4 of the Investment Advisers Act which generally governs the manner in which the adviser communicates with the public.

If a cryptocurrency is deemed to be a security, then the fund would also technically be subject to the Investment Company Act of 1940.  Most hedge funds utilize either the 3(c)(1) or 3(c)(7) exemption from registration under the ICA.  In general this will not wildly change the fund’s offering documents, but it will be an item that needs to be addressed.

What if the cryptocurrencies are not deemed to be securities?

If the fund only invests in assets that are not securities, then the investment advisory regulatory regime does not apply.  This means there would be no regulatory requirement for an audit (assuming no CFTC regulations apply) and the manager could charge performance fees to non-qualified clients.  The Investment Company Act would also not apply which means that the fund would be able to have more than 99 investors.  The fund would, however, still be limited to 35 non-accredited investors over the life of the fund to maintain the 506 exemption under the Securities Act.

What about state regulations and New York’s BitLicense registration requirement?

Outside of the investment advisory regulations that would be applicable to a manager if the cryptocurrency or token was deemed to be a security, the states don’t really have regulations applicable to bitcoin managers.

With respect to New York’s BitLicense requirement, we believe that currently these regulations are not applicable to the standard bitcoin hedge fund manager who is only buying and selling bitcoin (and other tokens/altcoins) for the fund’s account.  The BitLicense requirements may apply (depending on facts and circumstances) to managers who engage in other aspects of the cryptocurrency industry – such as issuing coins or otherwise acting as an exchange platform.  We expect other states to develop legal and regulatory frameworks similar to New York in the future, and in the event the SEC attempts to shoehorn bitcoin managers into the definition of investment adviser, we believe the states would shortly follow suit.

What about an auditor?  If I have to have an audit, what will that be like and how much will it cost?

In the event a manager engages an auditor, the auditor will be able to discuss the process and procedures that will be employed.  Because there is additional work involved in a bitcoin launch, it is likely that an audit will be more expensive than for a similarly sized fund investing only in publicly traded securities.

There are not many groups who can audit funds in this space.  Some groups can audit in this space, but can only audit major cryptocurrencies. As more groups get into the space and procedures become more defined, we expect that audit prices will eventually come down a bit.

Cryptocurrencies present a number of issues for audit firms including: (1) existence of the asset/currency, (2) control of the asset/currency, and (3) custody.  For many altcoins, the first two issues can be addressed with a review of the blockchain and the manager showing control of the asset by moving it on the blockchain in some manner.  The last issue is potentially more problematic in that the investment management industry is used to a certain definition of custody (holding something) that may not fit within the digital asset space, where control and the ability to utilize an asset is really more of the applicable context.

What about an administrator?

A hedge fund administrator provides certain accounting and other operational functions for the fund like subscription document processing.  Normally the fund administrator will be responsible for calculating NAVs on a monthly/quarterly basis and when investors enter and exit the fund.  They also compute management and performance fees.  Having an administrator is not a regulatory requirement for a cryptocurrency fund, but it is a best practice.  We will note that all of the cryptocurrency funds we have worked with have decided to engage an administration firm.

What about bank accounts?

One to two years ago, there was no issue for a manager to get a bank account for a bitcoin hedge fund.  Since then, bitcoin has become a risk for banks and over the last six months we’ve seen banks fully eschewing this space.  Groups who previously banked bitcoin funds will not bank new funds (although they would continue to maintain existing accounts) and groups who were not in the space are completely staying away.  We have fortunately been introduced to a couple of banks who are now more comfortable with banking cryptocurrency clients.  While these banks can provide the very basic subscription account for funds, there also may be value-added services, especially with respect to transfers to and from exchanges, as well as API integration.

The process to get a bank account is going to be a little longer than for a traditional hedge fund because the bank will complete more due diligence than for a normal fund (i.e., look into the business background of the manager, the proposed investment program, who the investors are, etc).  While these groups are comfortable with the cryptocurrency space in general, they likely will not bank groups who pose even the slightest reputational risk or groups who have had regulatory issues in the past.

What about compliance and outside compliance consultants?

Right now compliance really only applies to the fund structure (as opposed to the manager as would be the case if the manager was an investment adviser).  Fund compliance really just involves the legal requirements related to the Regulation D 506 offering applicable to the issuance of fund interests (e.g. Form D filings, annual updates and amendments, blue sky filings, etc).

Compliance related to the management of a cryptocurrency portfolio is really nonexistent.  We would expect that the managers would adhere to normal anti-fraud provisions, and a best practice would be to have certain business continuity plans and other standard fund management policies and procedures, even if there is no outside regulatory requirement.  Some groups have asked us about setting up compliance programs in anticipation of future compliance needs and we think this is a good idea.  Either a law firm or a compliance consulting firm would be able to draft a compliance manual for the needs of a cryptocurrency fund manager.

What about ICOs?

As of right now, there are no extra regulatory requirements around participation in initial coin offerings (ICOs).  We believe that this will change in the future.

What are some common terms of bitcoin funds?

The biggest questions are around lock ups and liquidity.  In general most managers will tend to want to provide less liquidity than investors are looking for and some managers have thought about instituting gate provisions, especially if the investment program is focused on smaller altcoins that may have less liquidity.  We are also seeing a number of managers who would like to allow in-kind contributions and distributions, which will implicate certain tax regulations.

How is bitcoin taxed?

The IRS addressed this issue in 2014 when it released Notice 2014-21, IRS Virtual Currency Guidance.  Right now most cryptocurrencies (and other “virtual currencies”) are treated as property and subject to the normal tax principles regarding property.  This means that dispositions of virtural currencies will result in short-term or long-term capital gains or losses and not foreign currency gains or losses.  Standard ways to determine gain or losses at disposition will apply (for most cryptocurrencies), and we would look to the various exchanges to determine a price of a cryptocurrency at any particular point in time.  This would be important if a manager or other investor in a fund decided to invest in a fund through an in-kind cryptocurrency contribution.

According to Notice 2014-21, bitcoin is deemed to be a “convertible” virtual currency because it has an equivalent value in real currency.  Early this year bitcoin became legal tender in Japan.

What about separately managed accounts or prop trading?

As of right now we do not know of any way to create a traditional separately managed account structure for an investment in cryptocurrencies.  In a SMA structure in the traditional securities space the client will typically establish a brokerage account at a large broker (Schwab, Fidelity, etc) and the manager will be given power of attorney to trade the account.  The relationship is governed by some kind of advisory agreement laying out the fees and term of the relationship.  Typically the brokers will have a way for the manager to have trading only access to the client’s account.  We do not believe that any of the exchanges currently have this functionality.  We anticipate that sometime after the regulatory agencies implement a regulatory structure that the exchanges will create mechanisms to implement such relationships on their platforms.

Other Items 

We anticipate writing about the following soon in some fashion:

  • Creating structures to allow funds to invest on exchanges that do not allow U.S. persons
  • Creating structures to allow funds to invest on exchanges that do not allow New York persons
  • Third party marketing in the cryptocurrency space
  • Using the ICO process to launch a private fund
  • Issues around Regulation D, including the Bad Actor regulations

Final Notes

Please reach out if you have questions on any of the above.  We will continue to update as we run into more issues and common questions.


Bart Mallon is a founding partner of Cole-Frieman & Mallon LLP. Cole-Frieman & Mallon has been instrumental in structuring the launches of some of the first digital currency-focused hedge funds. For more information on this topic, please contact Mr. Mallon directly at 415-868-5345.


New York BitLicense

Overview of the Cryptocurrency Licensing Regime in New York

As cryptocurrencies continue to make headlines, questions continue to arise about the regulatory landscape applicable to market participants. While there have been no new laws or regulations related to the cryptocurrency space from federal agencies (although in the Coinflip order, the CFTC stated that bitcoin is a virtual currency), some states are beginning to examine cryptocurrencies with New York as a forerunner in this space.  In 2015, New York created a BitLicense Regulatory Framework whereby certain cryptocurrency market participants were required to obtain a license to transact business within New York (and/or with New York residents).  This post focuses on New York’s regulatory action regarding cryptocurrencies with the issuance of the BitLicense, and the potential impact this may have on investment managers.

New York BitLicense

Pursuant to the Part 200. Virtual Currencies regulations, any persons involved in “virtual currency business activity” in New York must obtain a license known as the “BitLicense.”  The regulation defines a “virtual currency business activity” as:

  • receiving virtual currency for transmission or transmitting virtual currency, except where the transaction is undertaken for non-financial purposes and does not involve the transfer of more than a nominal amount of virtual currency;
  • storing, holding, or maintaining custody or control of virtual currency on behalf of others;
  • buying and selling virtual currency as a customer business;
  • performing exchange services as a customer business; and
  • controlling, administering, or issuing a virtual currency.

The above categories really seem to apply to those groups who are acting as cryptocurrency exchanges and/or are offering “wallet” type services.  For most fund managers who are simply managing a fund which is investing in virtual currencies, the above items would not implicate such managers and such managers would not need to obtain the BitLicense.  However, if a manager (or an investment fund) was engaged in activity other than simply buying/selling/holding cryptocurrencies, the manager should be aware of the above items.

BitLicense Application

In order to receive the license, an applicant must complete a 30-page Application for License to Engage In Virtual Currency Business Activity and pay a $5,000 application fee.  The application requires information on the history of the business, its owners and operators, operational items, financials, information on AML procedures, and information on its general compliance processes.  In total the application is fairly onerous and costly and will likely deter many potential companies for applying for the license.  Few BitLicenses have actually been granted to date, and those that have been granted were to major players in the industry such as Coinbase and Ripple.

Other Related Items

There are a number of interesting related items and a discussion about these can be found on the BitLicense FAQs page.  A couple of the more interesting items:

  • Chartered New York Bank – if a group is already chartered under the New York Banking Law, that entity does not need to apply for the BitLicense but must first receive prior approval from the New York Department of Financial Services to engage in the activity.
  • Money Transmitter License – groups who engage in certain activities may also need to apply for a money transmitter license in New York.  Groups who are applying to engage in both activities only need to submit one application.

The two items above are most likely not applicable to fund managers.

Looking Forward

The establishment of a BitLicense demonstrates that states are trying to figure out how to assert authority over a space that prides itself on decentralization. The New York BitLicense has been seen as controversial, along with similarly proposed licenses in other states. Although this appears to not have a direct impact on investment managers yet, investment managers that engage in certain kinds of virtual currency activity may fall within the scope of requiring a license.

Related articles:


Bart Mallon is a founding partner of Cole-Frieman & Mallon LLP. Cole-Frieman & Mallon has been instrumental in structuring the launches of some of the first digital currency-focused hedge funds. For more information on this topic, please contact Mr. Mallon directly at 415-868-5345.