Category Archives: Cryptocurrency Issues

Allocator Perspectives in Digital Assets – Panel Discussion

Leave a reply

On November 19 Cole-Frieman & Mallon hosted an event for managers and investors in the digital asset and cryptocurrency space.  Below are notes from the panel discussion.

****

Many thanks to all who made our event this week such a success, especially Moderator, Michael Arrington (Arrington XRP Capital) and Panelists, Aram Verdiyan (Accolade Partners), Brooke Pollack (Hutt Capital), Thomas Chladeck (Diginex), and Nabeel Qadri (Protocol Ventures).

Discussion was animated and at brief moments entertainingly off topic but within our hour-long panel we touched on many core issues:

  • Allocators must answer to their own investors/limited partners – currently demand (from endowments, institutions, family office, etc) for digital asset products is not high.
  • We discussed the Bitwise study on allocating crypto in an institutional portfolio.  While that study makes clear the potential positives, the panel was divided on whether exposure to digital assets should be done through FOF vehicles or simply through holding bitcoin at one of the large custodians (Coinbase Anchorage, Fidelity, etc).
  • The panel discussed a broad spectrum of digital asset investment styles – from VC type strategies to long tokens/protocols to trading strategies, acknowledging there are pros and cons with each.  Ultimately panelists were split on what the right mix might be and opinions were informed by their time-horizon preferences.
  • Opinions varied on portfolio construction.  Some believe that protocol layers are the correct play and that businesses will eventually be built on the protocol layers.  Others believe the industry is so much in its infancy that the bets need to be placed on development teams/companies who can develop and pivot as necessary.
  • The panelists agreed that manager pedigree is an important measure of due diligence and the allocators will generally look to a manager’s understanding of the space, their technical capacity and knowledge, and their historical presence in the space.  One panelist noted it is not uncommon to find managers with 5-6 year portfolios.
  • The topic of timing was big – many of the panelists did not think they had the ability to specifically time the market and that all investments in this space should really be focused on the long term prospects of the industry as a whole.
  • Everyone seemed to agree that the digital asset space is waiting for its Lotus123 moment.  As of now it appears Bitcoin is both the religion and killer app even as there are various trends which pop up from time to time (DeFi as the trend right now).

****

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.

Blockstack Regulation A+ Token Offering

Leave a reply

Overview of the Regulation A+ Offering Circular for Crypto Tokens

By Bart Mallon
Co-Managing Partner, Cole-Frieman & Mallon LLP

It is generally accepted that the initial coin offering (ICO) from mid-2017 is dead and that firms raising money for their blockchain or token projects will need to do so in a way that is compliant with SEC laws and regulations.  For many groups, this means raising money through general private placements or various SAFTs (simple agreement for future tokens)  and SAFEs (simple agreement for future equity).  However, raising money in this manner does not put the seller’s tokens in the hands of a mass audience which is an important element for groups who are trying to obtain network effects for their project.  One alternative to traditional private offerings for token projects is the Regulation A+ public offering of tokens for up to $50M in proceeds.  Although Regulation A+ has been a potential avenue for a number of blockchain groups, it has been an untested and it was unclear what the time or costs would be to complete such an offering.  This all changed with the Blockstack public offering of tokens pursuant to Reg A+.

Through considerable time and cost, Blockstack submitted its Regulation A+ “Tier 2” offering to the SEC for “qualification” to publicly sell its tokens (Stacks Tokens) on April 11 2019.  We have reviewed all 203 dense pages of Blockstack’s Offering Circular (which is estimated to cost $1.8M in legal and accounting fees to produce) and take this opportunity to discuss the unique characteristics of the the offering which any token project will need to address in the future.  While we can see that this will be the first step in standardizing token offerings under Regulation A+, we also see that there are a number of legal, business and operational issues that any token sponsor will need to address in what will inevitably be a “not as easy as advertised” process with the SEC.

What is Blockstack & the Stacks Token?

Blockstack is a blockchain platform with a goal of “sponsoring and commercializing an open-source peer-to-peer network using blockchain technologies to ultimately build a new network for decentralized applications.”  The platform has been designed to do a number of things that current blockchains and centralized working solutions (i.e. Google Docs) do, but with a focus on decentralization and a high level of privacy.  Blockstack is introducing use cases which include a browser, universal user accounts and personal data lockers which are all designed to give users control over their personal data.  Eventually the blockchain will allow for more decentralized apps and a smart contract platform with a new smart contract language and more clarity on costs for use of the language.

The Stacks Tokens on the Blockstack network, which are being sold in the offering, will ultimately be used as fuel for running the smart contracts on the blockchain (the tokens will be burned).  The Stacks Tokens will also be used by consumers as payments for the decentralized applications that will live on the network.  Tokens will also be used for polling purposes and other incentives.  In general, the platform looks very similar to other smart contract platforms with some technical differences.  The project sponsored is Blockstack PBC, a Delaware public benefit corporation,  a company with a number of well-healed and well known investors.  For more information on the Stacks Token and project as a whole, you can see their sales deck for the token offering.

$50M Regulation A+ Raise

The proceeds from the raise will be generated through two different programs – the cash program and the app-mining program.  Together the programs will raise $50M in consideration over the 12 months following the “qualification” of the offering.

Cash Program

In the cash program, there are two different sales prices for the tokens based on whether the tokens are sold in exchange for vouchers (to persons who indicated interest to Blockstack in November and December of 2017) or if they are sold in the general offering.  The price is $0.12 per token (up to 215M tokens) for investors who participated in the voucher program and $0.30 (up to 40M tokens, but can be modified to be up to 62M tokens) for investors who participate through the general offering.  The total consideration amount from the cash program (vocher and general offerings) will not exceed $38M, but the total amounts are subject to the tokens ultimately distributed through the app mining program, which is variable.

App Mining Program

Blockstack is offering tokens as rewards to certain developers of applications on its blockchain.  [Include more here.]  These token rewards are being included as part of the Reg A+ offering because they may be deemed to be investment contracts and/or as part of the offering.  Pursuant to this program, all gifted tokens will be deemed to be work $0.30 per token for the first three months after the qualification of the offering, and then based on current market prices for the tokens.  The idea is that Blockstack is getting consideration in-kind with work provided on its blockchain and is paying for that work with tokens.

Other Aspects of the Offering and Business

There are a number of other interesting legal and business items which were discussed throughout the offering circular.  Many of these items are unique to Blockstack’s business, but many will have general applicability to future Reg A+ digital asset offerings.

  • Finalizing tokens offered in program – as previously discussed, the total amount of tokens sold through the offering is not set in stone.  Directly after the SEC deems the offering “qualified”, Blockstack will finalize the allocation of tokens between the cash and app mining programs.  A sale of the tokens will open 28 days after the SEC deems the offering to be “qualified”.
  • Tier 2 investor qualification – the offering is a “Tier 2” offering which means both accredited and unaccredited investors will be allowed to invest.  Because it is a Tier 2 offering, the unaccredited investors are limited to invest 10% of the greater of annual income or net worth.
  • Concurrent Reg S offering – Blockstack is raising additional capital from non-US persons in a concurrent offering.  The tokens sold in the Regulation S offering will be subject to a 1 year lockup (investors cannot use during the lockup period) and are being sold at $0.25 per token.
  • Tokens subject to a time-lock – for many reasons Blockstack has chosen that the purchased tokens will be introduced to the platform over time, with full distribution of all sold tokens 2 years after the qualification of the offering.  Blockstack will release 1/24th of the sold tokens at inception, then will release 1/24th of the sold tokens once a month thereafter (every 4,320 blocks on the bitcoin blockchain).
  • No restriction on transfers of tokens – this offering is not of restricted securities (see our earlier post about token distribution issues / restricted securities) and are free usable and tradable (on a registered exchange or ATS) upon release from the time-lock; however, Blockstack believes the Stacks Tokens will not initially trade on any crypto exchanges and this will make it hard to sell the tokens.
  • “Cap Table” – there was much information presented about the current token float (the genesis block created 1.32B tokens) and the amount of tokens sold in previous offerings (various private placements and SAFTs).  After all the offerings and various distributions, there will be 116M tokens unallocated that Blockstack will control and can utilize however they wish.  Many of the issued tokens have been or are being provided to related entities to compensate employees, similar to stock option grants.
  • Use of proceeds – as is the case with most all offerings, there is a discussion of how the sponsors will use the cash proceeds from the sale.  Blockstack also discusses the use of the cash proceeds under different levels of total subscription (25%, 50%, 75% and 100%).
  • Milestones – through a previous funding round, Blockstack was provided with capital if they met certain milestones with respect to the development and adoption of the Blockstack network.  While they easily met the first milestone (technical implementation of certain features of the blockchain), it is unclear if they will meet the second milestone (dealing with adoption of the network).  They will be required to “return a significant amount of capital that Blockstack currently intends to use in the development of the Blockstack network.”  The milestone is 1M verified users by the end of January 2020.  Blockstack specifically says that at current growth rates it will not achieve the second milestone.
  • Hard Fork from Bitcoin – Blockstack currently runs as a virtual blockchain on the bitcoin network.  It will ultimately transition over to its own blockchain when it has a large enough network to maintain security.  This will involve a “hard fork” to the Blockstack network and its associated risks.
  • Risk Factors – as with any public or private placement, there are attendant risks which are disclosed to potential investors.  These include normal investment risks (operations, catastrophic events, etc) and general risks related to digital/crypto (loss of token, irreversible, loss of keys, various hacks, forks, volatility, uncertain tax treatment, etc), however, there were a number of interesting Blockstack specific risks including: risk of not attracting both users and developers to the platform, the time-lock risk, regulatory risk (does not have New York BitLicense, is not a money transmitter or money services business, potential violation of Regulation M with respect to its activities in its own tokens, etc).

Legal Issues Presented

In addition to the description of many of the business issues related to the creation of the blockchain, there are a number of novel legal issues presented and addressed in the offering circular.  Below we have identified the most interesting of these issues and have included how Blockstack has addressed them.

  • Are the tokens securities?  Blockstack believes that the current tokens (non-sufficiently decentralized) are a type of security called an investment contract and are not equity or debt securities:

We do not believe that the Stacks Tokens should be characterized as either debt or equity under the securities laws.  We believe that these tokens should currently be characterized as investment contracts.  Holders will not receive a right to any repayment of principal or interest, as might be expected under a traditional debt instrument; nor will they receive an interest in the profits or losses of any Blockstack affiliate, any rights to distributions from any Blockstack affiliate, or any legal or contractual right to exercise control over the operations or continued development of any Blockstack affiliate, as might be expected for a traditional equity instrument.

  • When will the tokens be “sufficiently decentralized” so they are no longer securities?  This is one of the most important questions of the offering and essentially addresses the question of when the SEC will lose jurisdiction over the tokens in the offering and when/how Blockstack can issue, sell or otherwise use the tokens as rewards for certain activity on its blockchain.

The board of directors of Blockstack PBC will be responsible for regularly considering and ultimately determining whether the Stacks Tokens no longer constitute securities issued by us under the federal and state securities laws of the United States.  In making this determination, the board will refer to the relevant legal and regulatory standards for such determination in effect at the time of such determination, will consult with legal counsel and will, if possible and appropriate, seek consultation with relevant regulatory authorities including, we expect, the Commission.  At the present time, based on the guidance cited above, we expect this determination to turn the SEC’s recent guidance on the application of the test under SEC v. W. J. Howey Co. (the “Howey test”) to digital assets set forth in its release “Framework for ‘Investment Contract’ Analysis of Digital Assets,” and specifically on whether the Blockstack network is sufficiently decentralized, which will, in turn, depend on whether purchasers of Stacks Tokens reasonably expect Blockstack to carry out essential managerial or entrepreneurial efforts, and whether Blockstack retains a degree of power over the governance of the network such that its material non-public information may be of special relevance to the future of the Blockstack network, as compared to other network participants. Under current guidance, Blockstack would expect to take the position that if the answers to these questions are that purchasers do not and Blockstack does not, the Stacks Tokens will no longer constitute a security under the federal and state securities laws of the United States. The board of directors of Blockstack PBC may also assess other criteria for making this determination, including any criteria based on additional guidance we receive from U.S. regulators.   …

In the event that the board of directors of Blockstack PBC determines that the Stacks Tokens are no longer a security issued by Blockstack Token LLC, Blockstack will make a public announcement of its determination at least six months prior to taking any actions based on this determination, such as filing an exit report on Form 1-Z terminating its reporting obligations with respect to the Stacks Tokens under Regulation A.

  • Are any actors related to Blockstack or its blockchain required to be registered in any way?  Here, Blockstack addresses the issue of whether certain actors are required to be transfer or clearing agents because of their relationship to the blockchain and creation or distribution of the tokens:

We have taken the position that Blockstack, the miners on the network, and the network’s blockchain are not required to register as transfer agents, both because the Stacks Tokens are not currently securities registered under Section 12 of the Exchange Act, and because none of the activities Blockstack, the miners, or the blockchain is involved in are described in the definition of a transfer agent.  In addition, to the extent that certain activities that meet the definition of a transfer agent are performed automatically on the blockchain, the blockchain is not a “person” that would be required to register.  …

We have taken the position that Blockstack, the miners and the blockchain are not clearing agencies under the Exchange Act because the types of activities they engage in are not those described in the definition of a clearing agency.  To the extent that these activities occur on the blockchain, the blockchain is not a “person” that would be required to register.

Blockstack has included similar discussions related to questions on whether it or any related actor is an investment company, broker-dealer, money transmitter, money services business, or subject to New York BitLicense requirements.  All of these discussions conclude that the way the current blockchain works, and pursuant to the current interpretation of the securities laws, Blockstack and related actors would not be required to register as any of the above.  It is possible that the SEC or the various state securities regulators could disagree with conclusions presented in the offering circular.

  • Is the Blockstack Network or the browser an ATS?  The issue of what actors may be deemed to be an ATS is an open one and will eventually be an important issue when the SEC provides FINRA and the digital asset industry with future guidance.  (HFLB note: SEC and FINRA just recently released a joint statement on digital asset custody which we will be reviewing shortly.)

We have taken the position that neither the network nor the Browser should be viewed as an exchange or an ATS because neither will “bring together” anyone by sorting or organizing orders in the Stacks Tokens in a consolidated way or by receiving orders for processing and execution of transactions in the Stacks Tokens.  Instead, each proposed transaction involving Stacks Tokens on the network will by individually negotiated and implemented. For example, transactions by users (such as developers or users of Decentralized Applications) will be posted on an individual basis. In addition, we will be the only “seller” of Stacks Tokens when we distribute them as rewards on the network. …

We also take the position that payments on the network and the Browser for services do not involve “orders” of securities, because they are not primarily purchases of securities. Instead, these payments are commercial sales of access to Decentralized Applications or of items bought through in-app purchases.

Conclusion

It is clear that Blockstack has carefully thought through the business and legal issues involved in launching a Regulation A+ capital raise in order to expand a blockchain and token network.  While the offering circular provides thoughtful analysis, it also highlights the many unresolved issues that plague the digital asset space.  The digital asset industry in the US is starved for clarity on many of these issues and, if this offering is ultimately qualified, it will be a large step forward in solidifying how token sponsors should proceed with capital raises.  Blockstack spent a lot of money to produce the offering circular and we must hope that this filing, or a filing similar to this, can become the template for blockchain token projects of the future.

****

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 ETF – Bitwise Asset Management

Leave a reply

Cole-Frieman & Mallon Comment Letter to SEC

On June 12, 2019 our law firm submitted a comment letter to the SEC with respect to the Bitwise Bitcoin ETF application.  In our comment we stated that we believe it is in the best interest of the bitcoin market that the Bitwise ETF be approved.  We made this statement based on our firm’s experience with asset managers generally, and specifically with asset managers in the digital asset space.  We also believe that the various Bitwise presentations and research prepared for the staff (here, here, and here) present strong arguments for the approval of the Bitwise ETF.

The Bitwise ETF application was originally submitted to the SEC by the listing Exchange (NYSE Arca) on January 28, 2019 and has subsequently under gone two statutory extensions (see here) as the SEC tries to figure out how they are going to regulate the digital asset industry.  Ultimately the SEC will need to make a final decision (accept or reject) by mid-October.  The various comment letters (found here) show overall support for the Bitwise ETF and generally implore the SEC to approve the application.

****

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.

NFA to Require Disclosure of Digital Asset Activities

Leave a reply

CPOs and CTAs to Augment Disclosure Documents

On July 20, 2018, the National Futures Association (“NFA”) submitted an Interpretive Notice titled Disclosure Requirements for NFA Members Engaging in Virtual Currency Activities to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”).  Through Section 17(j) of the Commodity Exchange Ac (“CEA”), the NFA has invoked the “ten-day” provision to allow the Interpretive Notice to become effective 10 days after its submission to the CFTC.  The NFA has proposed this Interpretive Notice in an effort to better inform and notify consumers of the risks involved with trading and investing in cryptocurrencies.  This Interpretive Notice sets forth disclosure requirements for two groups: (1) futures commission merchants (“FCMs”) and introducing brokers (“IBs”) and (2) commodity pool operators (“CPOs”) and commodity trading advisors (“CTAs”).

Proposed Interpretive Notice

The proposed Interpretive Notice specifies the following requirements:

For FCMs and IBs:

  • provide customers with the NFA Investor Advisory – Futures on Virtual Currencies Including Bitcoin and the CFTC Customer Advisory: Understand the Risk of Virtual Currency Trading (collectively, the “Advisories”) and for introduced accounts, the FCM or IB may provide the Advisories;
  • provide customers who traded a virtual currency derivative prior to the issuance of the Interpretive Notice with the Advisories within 30 calendar days of the Interpretive Notice’s effective date;
  • provide customers of FCMs and IBs offering services in spot market virtual currencies with a standardized disclosure[1] that specifically states that the NFA does not have regulatory oversight authority over underlying or spot virtual currency products or transactions or virtual currency exchanges, custodians, or markets;
  • provide the Advisories to a customer at or before the time the customer engages in a virtual currency derivative transaction;
  • provide the standardized disclosure at or before the time a customer or counterparty engages in any underlying or spot virtual currency activity with or through the FCM or IB;
  • provide retail customers the Advisories and standardized disclosure language in writing or electronically in a prominent manner designed to ensure that the customer is aware of them; and
  • display the standardized disclosure language on any promotional materials related to spot market virtual currencies.

For CPOs and CTAs:

  • address the following areas that are applicable to their activities in their disclosure documents, offering documents, and promotional material related to virtual currencies: (1) unique features of virtual currencies; (2) price volatility; (3) valuation and liquidity; (4) cybersecurity; (5) the opaque spot market; (6) virtual currency exchanges, intermediaries, and custodians; (7) the regulatory landscape; (8) technology; and (9) transaction fees;
  • customize disclosure documents and offering documents to address all the unique risks related to their particular activities;
  • include a standardized disclosure[2] in disclosure documents, offering documents, and promotional materials related to virtual currencies addressing the limits of the NFA’s oversight and informing investors that there currently is no sound or acceptable practice that the NFA can use to verify the ownership and control of underlying or spot virtual currencies (this is a requirement of CPOs or CTAs that operate a pool, exempt pool, or trading program that trades spot market virtual currencies); and
  • provide a standardized disclosure[3] to customers and counterparties that specifically states that the NFA does not have regulatory oversight authority over underlying or spot virtual currency activities and display it in any promotional materials for any spot market virtual currency activities (other than as an investment in a pool or managed account program) engaged in by a CPO or CTA.

“Spot” Digital Assets vs. Digital Asset Derivatives

Throughout the proposed Interpretive Notice the NFA discusses both spot and derivative digital assets.  “Spot” digital assets are digital assets that are purchased for cash intended for immediate delivery and not at some future date.  The CFTC generally does not oversee spot digital assets, other than in instances of fraud or manipulation.  In contrast, digital asset derivatives are instruments that stem from and are priced in comparison to the underlying digital asset, with the underlying asset intended to be delivered at a future date.  Digital asset derivatives include instruments such as futures and options.  Unlike spot digital assets, the CFTC and NFA have jurisdiction over the digital asset derivatives.

What comes next?

Over the last few days our law firm has spoken with both the NFA and CFTC about this matter.  Although they could not provide more information regarding the drafting of the Interpretive Notice, they mentioned that once the Interpretive Notice becomes effective, individuals subject to the Interpretive Notice will be given time to become compliant.  They also mentioned that it likely that the NFA will issue another announcement that will publicize the effective date of the notice and when qualifying members need to be in compliance.

Conclusion

It is unclear if the CFTC will take up the NFA’s Interpretive Notice for approval or if the Interpretive Notice will become effective 10 days after its submission to the CFTC.  However, it should be noted that the majority of NFA proposals sent to the CFTC are approved.  Despite this, all FCMs, IBs, CPOs, and CTAs should review the various indicated communications and documents to prepare for the potential approval of the Interpretive Notice.  We will continue to report on this issue.

***

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 digital currency-focused hedge funds and works routinely on matters affecting the digital asset industry.   Mr. Mallon can be reached directly at 415-868-5345

Links to the other NFA items on digital assets:

[1] The standardized disclosure required is the following: [NAME OF NFA MEMBER] IS A MEMBER OF NFA AND IS SUBJECT TO NFA’S REGULATORY OVERSIGHT AND EXAMINATIONS. HOWEVER, YOU SHOULD BE AWARE THAT NFA DOES NOT HAVE REGULATORY OVERSIGHT AUTHORITY OVER UNDERLYING OR SPOT VIRTUAL CURRENCY PRODUCTS OR TRANSACTIONS OR VIRTUAL CURRENCY EXCHANGES, CUSTODIANS OR MARKETS.

[2] The standardized disclosure required is the following: [NAME OF NFA MEMBER] IS A MEMBER OF NFA AND IS SUBJECT TO NFA’S REGULATORY OVERSIGHT AND EXAMINATIONS. [NAME OF NFA MEMBER] HAS ENGAGED OR MAY ENGAGE IN UNDERLYING OR SPOT VIRTUAL CURRENCY TRANSACTIONS IN A [COMMODITY POOL OR MANAGED ACCOUNT PROGRAM]. ALTHOUGH NFA HAS JURISDICTION OVER [NAME OF NFA MEMBER] AND ITS [COMMODITY POOL OR MANAGED ACCOUNT PROGRAM], YOU SHOULD BE AWARE THAT NFA DOES NOT HAVE REGULATORY OVERSIGHT AUTHORITY FOR UNDERLYING OR SPOT MARKET VIRTUAL CURRENCY PRODUCTS OR TRANSACTIONS OR VIRTUAL CURRENCY EXCHANGES, CUSTODIANS OR MARKETS. YOU SHOULD ALSO BE AWARE THAT GIVEN CERTAIN MATERIAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THESE PRODUCTS, INCLUDING LACK OF A CENTRALIZED PRICING SOURCE AND THE OPAQUE NATURE OF THE VIRTUAL CURRENCY MARKET, THERE CURRENTLY IS NO SOUND OR ACCEPTABLE PRACTICE FOR NFA TO ADEQUATELY VERIFY THE OWNERSHIP AND CONTROL OF A VIRTUAL CURRENCY OR THE VALUATION ATTRIBUTED TO A VIRTUAL CURRENCY BY [NAME OF NFA MEMBER].

[3] The standardized disclosure required is the following: [NAME OF NFA MEMBER] IS A MEMBER OF NFA AND IS SUBJECT TO NFA’S REGULATORY OVERSIGHT AND EXAMINATIONS. HOWEVER, YOU SHOULD BE AWARE THAT NFA DOES NOT HAVE REGULATORY OVERSIGHT AUTHORITY OVER UNDERLYING OR SPOT VIRTUAL CURRENCY PRODUCTS OR TRANSACTIONS OR VIRTUAL CURRENCY EXCHANGES, CUSTODIANS OR MARKETS.

Alternative Trading Systems (ATS)

Leave a reply

ATS Registration Overview for Digital Asset Platforms

Digital asset platforms located in the U.S. that facilitate trading and exchange of digital assets (which are deemed to be securities) are generally subject to securities laws requiring such platforms to be registered as a national securities exchange (“NSE”) or fall within an exemption from NSE registration.  One exemption from registration as an NSE allows firms to conduct a platform business if such firm is registered as an alternative trading system (“ATS”).  This requirement was first highlighted by the SEC in the DAO Report released in July 2017.  We anticipate that many digital asset platforms currently facilitating trading will continue to face scrutiny as to whether they need to be registered as NSEs or an ATS and many have already begun the process to register as an ATS.

ATS Definition & Requirement to Register

The statutory definition of an ATS is:

any organization, association, person, group of persons, or system:

(1) That constitutes, maintains, or provides a market place or facilities for bringing together purchasers and sellers of securities or for otherwise performing with respect to securities the functions commonly performed by a stock exchange within the meaning of § 240.3b-16 of this chapter; and

(2) That does not:

(i) Set rules governing the conduct of subscribers other than the conduct of such subscribers’ trading on such organization, association, person, group of persons, or system; or

(ii) Discipline subscribers other than by exclusion from trading.

As many digital asset platforms or exchanges technically fall within the ATS definition, these platforms will need to appropriately register with the SEC.  To register as an ATS, the platform will need to do the following:

  1. Register as (or buy) a broker-dealer
  2. File Form ATS
  3. Comply with Regulation ATS

1. Register as a Broker-Dealer

Registering as a broker-dealer (“BD”) is a pre-requite to becoming an ATS.  A firm may only file Form ATS with the SEC after receiving the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority’s (“FINRA”) approval of its broker-dealer application (or after purchase of a broker-dealer).  For platforms registering as a broker-dealer, at a high level the firm must:

  • Submit Form BD;
  • Comply with all applicable state requirements; and
  • Ensure all of its “associates persons” (BD representatives) have satisfied applicable qualification requirements.

The process to register as a new BD is well worn and relatively straight forward.  Firms applying to register as a BD will need to submit online through Form BD online and then submit a New Membership Application (“NMA”) to FINRA.  The NMA requires the firm to describe their business and compliance policies and controls in detail.  A firm will also be subject to an in-person new membership interview and will have to demonstrate how the ATS technology operates to FINRA staff.  As part of the BD process, the firm will need to become a member of at least one self-regulatory organization (“SRO”), which is likely to be FINRA, and become a member of the Securities Investor Protection Corporation (“SIPC”).

If a firm is already a broker-dealer (or has a broker dealer affiliate) but is not an ATS, the firm will need to submit a Continuing Membership Application (“Form CMA”) to FINRA.  For groups registering as a de novo BD, the firm should describe those parts of its business that will include the ATS function.  As with a de novo BD, an existing BD must demonstrate to FINRA staff how the ATS technology operates.

 2. File Form ATS

After a firm has registered as a BD and has discussed the ATS platform with FINRA (to FINRA’s satisfaction), the firm will need to notify the SEC that it is operating as an ATS.  Form ATS is the official SEC notification and must be submitted at least 20 days before the firm begins to operate its platform.

Form ATS is general in scope and requires information such as:

  • Certain identification information (i.e. full name, business name, address, CRD number, etc.)
  • Firm incorporation documents as attachments
  • Description of the types of users on the platform (i.e., broker-dealer, institution, or retail) and any differences in access to services between such users
  • List of the types of securities (digital assets/tokens which are deemed to be securities) that will be traded on the platform
  • Description of how the ATS will operate
  • Description of certain ATS operational procedures (i.e., entry of orders, transaction executions, reporting transactions, compliance, etc.)

It is important to note that Form ATS is a notice filing where the SEC provides no confirmation to the ATS regarding the filing status unless the form is deficient.  When a Form ATS has been filed with the SEC, it will be listed on the SEC website which will display the platform’s full name, the name(s) under which business is conducted, and the city and state of the ATS.  The reports on Form ATS are generally not published and are considered confidential.  Such reports will only be available to the SEC staff, state securities authorities, and any SRO for examination.

3. Ongoing Compliance

An ATS will be subject to numerous compliance obligations outside.  Some of the specific ATS obligations include:

  • File Form ATS-R (which summarizes the ATS’s transactions, on a quarterly basis) within 30 calendar days after the end of each quarter.
  • Amend Form ATS at least 20 calendar days before implementing a material change to the operation of the ATS.
  • Update Form ATS within 30 calendar days after the end of each quarter to correct any inaccurate or unreported information.
  • Permit the examination and inspection of its premises, systems, and records and cooperate with the examination, inspection, or investigation of subscribers by the SEC or SRO of which such subscriber is a member.

Additional BD, FINRA, and other guidelines, regulations, and obligations include:

  • Participating in the lost and stolen securities program.
  • Complying with the fingerprinting requirement.
  • Maintaining and reporting information regarding affiliates.
  • Following certain guidelines when using electronic media to deliver information.
  • Maintaining an anti-money laundering program.
  • Complying with the Department of Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”) programs.
  • Filing quarterly and annual financial statements to the SEC.

If an ATS is not in compliance with the above requirements it may be subject to steep penalties.  In addition, it is important to note that securities on a registered ATS platform may be subject to a wide range of holding periods which must be enforced for an ATS to remain in compliance.

Registration Timing

It is unclear exactly how long a particular ATS application will take to be approved – it will largely depend on the exact scope of activities the platform will be involved with.  In general a platform designed for trading of private placements (in a kind of closed system for accredited investors) would likely take anywhere from 6-12 months to become fully licensed after submitting the Form NMA.  Technically, FINRA is required to review and process a substantially complete NMA within 180 calendar days after receiving it.

Issues to Consider

There are a number of issues to consider with respect to an ATS application.

  1. Underlying Instruments – the securities on most current digital asset exchanges are unregistered securities which were originally offered outside of any sort of registration exemption. Essentially these are restricted securities and any person selling or reselling such securities are arguably violating US securities laws (for more background, please see our post on restricted securities and distribution structures).  In such a case, we are not sure how FINRA will view a platform which facilitates the trading of restricted instruments.  We have seen many token issuers over the last 6-12 months who have decided to offer their tokens/securities according to registration exemptions, including through SAFTs.  To the extent a digital asset platform only transacts with such tokens (or tokens which go through the S-1 IPO process, which we think will happen within the next 12 months), we believe it is likely that such a platform would be able to be registered with FINRA.
  2. Discussion with FINRA Regarding Trading System – we have not talked directly with FINRA about their review of ATS platforms.  Most ATS platforms were created to allow for “dark pool” trading in the traditional institutional securities space.  It is unclear if FINRA has the experience or technical understanding (currently) to deal with digital assets and applicable trading platforms.
  3. IRS Reporting Requirements – the IRS released a notice in 2014 regarding the tax treatment of virtual currency. Since then, the IRS has subjected exchanges to certain user reporting requirements.  It is unclear whether the IRS will extend these types of user reporting requirements to ATS platforms as well.
  4. FinCEN’s Money Services Businesses Requirements – the Department of the Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”) released guidance in March of 2013 regarding individuals who handle virtual currencies. FinCEN determined that a person engaged as a business in the exchange of virtual currency for real currency, funds, or other virtual currency (an “exchanger”) is subject to money services business (“MSB”) registration.  Although it is unclear if an ATS qualifies as a MSB, FinCEN has taken action against virtual currency exchanges that did not register with the bureau.
  5. Anti-Money Laundering and Know Your Customer Requirements – MSBs are required by the Bank Secrecy Act to have Anti-Money Laundering (“AML”) and Know Your Customer (“KYC”) procedures. AML procedures are required to detect and report suspicious actives that may indicate money laundering and terrorist financing.  KYC procedures are identification verification actions taken to ensure that the user is truly who they claim to be in order to prevent fraud.
  6. State Regulations – many states have imposed their own laws regarding digital assets. In addition, each state has its own rules and regulations regarding ATS platforms that operate within the state.  Before beginning to operate an ATS, you will want to research what rules and regulations your state has imposed.

Conclusion

After the DAO report, there have been a number of recent comments from SEC officials regarding digital assets and trading platforms that show the need for the cryptocurrency industry to quickly begin the process of integrating into the traditional securities regulatory landscape.  We believe that the ATS structure will become the predominant structure for digital asset exchanges in the future.  We also believe that over the next 12-24 months, as regulators flesh out various issues, the process will become more streamlined and well worn.  A few cryptocurrency related platforms have already started the process to become an ATS, with more likely to follow.

****

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 digital currency-focused hedge funds and works routinely on matters affecting the digital asset industry.  Please contact Mr. Mallon directly at 415-868-5345 if you have any questions on this post.

Notes on Regulation A+

Leave a reply

Last week members from our firm attended the inaugural Reg A Conference in New York, where various industry participants gathered to discuss Regulation A under the Securities Act of 1933 (Reg A+). The conference covered a wide range of topics on the Reg A+ landscape, including the recent shift towards utilizing Reg A+ for initial coin / security token offerings (more on this below).

As background, Reg A+ is a securities exemption created by Title IV of the JOBS Act that allows issuers to conduct securities offerings of up to (i) $20 million for Tier 1 offerings or (ii) $50 million for Tier 2 offerings on an annual basis. Reg A+ is viewed by some as a “mini-IPO” that provides small issuers with a more affordable and expedited method of publicly selling securities to retail investors throughout the United States.

Regulatory Obligations

While Reg A+ may be an attractive option for many startup and emerging companies, there are some notable eligibility restrictions. Only issuers that have a principal place of business in the United States or Canada may conduct a Reg A+ offering. Additionally, Reg A+ is not available to:

  1. Companies subject to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
  2. Investment Companies;
  3. Business Development Companies;
  4. Blank Check Companies;
  5. Certain Bad Actors;
  6. Issuers of fractional undivided interests in oil or gas rights or a similar interest in other mineral rights; and
  7. Issuers disqualified due to filing deficiencies.

Issuers that are eligible to issue securities under Reg A+ must undergo a review process with the SEC and potentially state securities regulators. Tier 1 issuers must qualify with state securities regulators as well as the SEC. Tier 2 issuers must qualify offerings solely with the SEC, as state review is preempted for Tier 2 (although state notice filings may be required). Tier 2 issuers must also provide audited financials as part of the qualification process.

Issuers that do qualify and issue securities pursuant to Reg A+ are also required to maintain post-qualification filings. Tier 1 issuers must file a Form 1-Z after the termination of an offering, whereas Tier 2 issuers must file annual audited financials, semi-annual unaudited reports, and current reports for ongoing offerings.

Why Regulation A+?

The primary selling point of Reg A+ is that it provides an expedited path for startup and emerging companies to issue securities to retail investors. Unlike private placements under Rule 506(b) or Rule 506(c) of Regulation D, securities offered pursuant to Reg A+ are purchasable by retail investors and freely tradeable upon issuance. Furthermore, while Rule 506(b) offerings institute a prohibition on general solicitation and registered offerings enforce a quiet period, issuers offering securities pursuant to Reg A+ may freely advertise before, during, and after the qualification period (subject to certain disclosure and disclaimer requirements).

Equity offerings pursuant to Reg A+ can also be listed on a registered exchange, with many issuers opting to do so. In short, Reg A+ effectively bridges the gap between Regulation D private placements and registered securities offerings by providing issuers access to the broader retail market and exchanges without the commitment and expense of conducting a registered offering.

Application for Initial Coin Offerings

There has been much discussion of late regarding the best mechanism for digital asset issuers to conduct initial coin offerings (ICOs) that are compliant with United States securities laws. While there has been some evidence that certain digital assets—namely Bitcoin and Ethereum—are likely not securities, there is strong evidence that the SEC considers most ICOs unregistered securities offerings.

In what is seen as the SEC’s initial assertion of jurisdiction in the digital asset and cryptocurrency economy, the SEC has repeatedly stated that ICO issuers must register offers or sales of securities unless a valid exemption applies. This has led many to believe that the SEC was signaling that token offerings could be offered pursuant to existing securities rules and exemptions. This belief was further solidified when SEC Commissioner Jay Clayton plainly stated: “It is possible to conduct an ICO without triggering the SEC’s registration requirements.  For example, just as with a Regulation D exempt offering to raise capital for the manufacturing of a physical product, an initial coin offering that is a security can be structured so that it qualifies for an applicable exemption from the registration requirements.”

With these statements and policies in mind, we believe that an increasing number of token issuers will look to conduct security token offerings (STOs) pursuant to Reg A+. Currently, multiple entities are working to register with the SEC and FINRA as broker-dealers and/or alternative trading systems capable of listing STOs and brokering related transactions. If STOs gain popularity as an alternative method to raise capital and/or securitize interests in assets, Reg A+ is the natural landing spot for tokenized securities—it is the most practical exemption that allows issuers to access retail investors and list the tokenized securities on exchanges without going through a full registration.

Conclusion

Although Reg A+ has only been in existence for three years (Reg A+ became effective in June 2015), it appears to be gaining traction as a preferred method for raising capital. While it can be challenging to determine the exact amount of capital that issuers have raised due to staggered and less frequent reporting timeframes, the SEC’s Office of Small Business Policy disclosed that Reg A+ offerings raised approximately $600 million from June 2015 through September 2017. Industry professionals estimate that number is now closer to $1 billion in the three years since the establishment of Reg A+.

In March of this year, the U.S. House of Representative passed the Regulation A+ Improvement Act of 2017, which would increase the cap on Tier 2 Regulation A+ offerings to $75 million. If the legislation passes the Senate and is signed into law, the increased cap could potentially provide tailwinds for further proliferation of Reg A+ as a funding mechanism for startup and emerging companies.

Please feel free to reach out to us if you have any questions about this post or if you believe your company could benefit from issuing equity, debt, or digital assets pursuant to Reg A+.

****

Kevin Cott is a partner of Cole-Frieman & Mallon LLP.  Cole-Frieman & Mallon LLP 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. Cott directly at 770-674-8481.

Hedge Fund Bits and Pieces for June 16, 2017

Leave a reply

We are a day late but hope you had a happy Friday.  As has been the trend, we are seeing a large focus on cryptocurrency assets and this update reflects that focus.

****

Speaking on Cryptocurrency Hedge Funds – I will be in New York next week to speak Thursday at the Blockchain, Accounting, Audit & Tax Conference.  The conference will have panels speaking throughout the day on various blockchain related issues.  I will be part of a panel entitled “Digital Asset Management and New Financial Products” where we will discuss current and future investment vehicles as well as how investors are (and should be) viewing these products.  More information on the event can be found here.

California BitLicense – continuing the trend toward increased regulation of digital assets, California has proposed (for a second time) a regulatory regime for certain exchanges dealing with bitcoin and other “virtual currency”.  This legislation comes on the heels of New York’s BitLicense requirement, along with other regulators beginning to look at blockchain based digital assets.  As described below, we believe the SEC will be addressing the industry soon with questions and comments regarding certain aspects of the FinTech industry.  For more on the California BitLicense requirement, please see here.

Industry asks SEC to Publish Concept Release on Regulation of Digital Assets – a FINRA registered broker-dealer recently petitioned the SEC to provide guidance with respect to the regulation of digital assets (to be called Regulation DA).  The broker-dealer asked that the SEC also consider adopting a regulatory sandbox for certain FinTech companies, similar to what is being employed in the UK and Singapore (the latter of which has seen a large influx of oversight/regulation of ICOs).  The broker-dealer also mentioned that the regulation of digital assets should be consistent with crowdfunding regulations given that digital assets (ICOs specifically) share many characteristics in common with the crowdfunding industry.  You can access the full petition here.

Financial CHOICE Act of 2017 – on June 8, the House of Representatives passed the Financial CHOICE Act which is aimed at rolling back many of the changes implemented by the Dodd-Frank Act.  There are a number of interesting things that this bill introduces, including: structural changes to the SEC, repeal of the Department of Labor’s (DOL’s) fiduciary rule, restructure the CFPB, and repeal the Volker Rule.  All of the above would affect the investment management industry in profound ways but it is unlikely we will see any movement on this bill in the Senate any time soon.  When and if we do, we will provide more analysis on the content of any legislation that is likely to pass and be implemented.  An executive summary of the bill can be found here. The full text can be found here.

****

Bart Mallon is a founding partner of Cole-Frieman & Mallon LLP and focuses his legal practice on the investment management industry. He can be reached directly at 415-868-5345.

Initial Coin Offerings (ICOs)

Leave a reply

ICO Overview and Securities Law Analysis

After a number of recent, high-profile and wildly successful Initial Coin Offerings or “ICOs”, the blockchain-based asset industry has been abuzz about new ICOs as well as the regulatory issues that surround the space.  This post provides a quick overview of the big securities laws issues surrounding these assets and discusses the regulatory structure currently applicable to the space.

Initial Background

An initial coin offering is the first distribution of a digital currency or digital token, normally offered exclusively through an online offering.  These coins or tokens, like many existing cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin or Ether, may represent some sort of fractional ownership in something (working similar to a security) or may represent a form of payment (like a currency).  These tokens may be pre-launch (to raise money to develop the use case, similar to crowd-funding) or post-launch (use case already exists).

Are ICOs Securities?

The first and biggest question related to ICOs is whether they are securities offerings (essentially digitized IPOs).  For any inquiry into whether something is a security or not, the starting point is the Howey Test.  Howey is a basic four-part test that is used to determine whether a contract, a transaction, or a series of actions constitutes a security under the Securities Act of 1933. The very broad overview of the Howey prongs are:

  • It is an investment of money
  • There is an expectation of profits from the investment
  • The investment of money is in a common enterprise
  • Any profit comes from the efforts of a promoter or third party

For many ICOs the answers to all of the above are usually “yes”.  We do, however, believe that some ICOs are not securities under the test and, although we start with Howey, that is not where the analysis stops.  As mentioned before in our post dealing with Bitcoin Hedge Funds, we believe that Debevoise’s Securities Law Framework provides a thoughtful approach to think about and analyze this question.  We also believe that the SEC will clarify its position regarding ICOs in the next several months.

Use Case – Blockchain Capital

One of the more interesting ICOs recently has been the ICO for the Blockchain Capital Token (BCAP Token, on TokenHub), which was placed by Argon Group, a blockchain asset investment bank.  Here the value of the BCAP Token is linked to the value of a newly created venture capital fund (which initial assets were received through the BCAP Token ICO process).  The subscription process of the ICO was conducted through a Regulation D 506(a) offering (see Blockchain Capital Token Form D), so there are a number of regulations that the group has already gone through, although none specifically dealing with the ICO itself.  What is particularly amazing is that the offering of $10M was oversubscribed and closed in only 6 hours.  The power of the ICO is apparent – what investment fund manager would not want to raise money in a very quick and efficient manner?

Blockchain Capital paved the way for ICOs linked to private investment funds – we would expect to see tokens linked to hedge funds and private equity funds in the near future.  While the Blockchain Capital offering was limited to accredited investors, the offering still presents questions about regulations, including the potential for fraud.  We liken the ICO process to something akin to the crowdfunding process and believe there are similar risks, in addition to the normal risks associated with the linked asset (in this case, a VC fund).

Future Regulation?

There is no doubt that the regulators will begin to figure out a regulatory regime for ICOs and cryptocurrencies, and this is likely to happen before any sort of Congressional action to change the laws of any of the securities or commodities acts.  The CFTC has already been active in the space (see our previous notes in our Client Update here) and it is very likely that the SEC will be starting the process to issue regulations as well (see here where a group has petitioned the SEC to begin that process).  We believe that during that comment and rulemaking process, the regulators will need to address a number of items, including the process with respect to ICOs.  The SEC needs to move with a deft hand, however, because any onerous regulations will just push business offshore – there are already exchanges who discriminate against potential market participants based on domicile (either with respect to U.S. domicile, or in some cases, New York domicile for fear of issues around the New York BitLicense regulations).

The crowdfunding space became regulated fairly quickly and there are now specific crowdfunding broker-dealers and I believe the same will be the case with the ICO regime.  We believe that any cryptocurrency regulatory regime will include requirements with respect to ICOs and ICO investment banks.

Conclusion

The ICO market is white hot and getting hotter.  It will undoubtedly create both winners and losers (and the winners are likely to be massive winners) and in some cases will usher in new ideas and technologies that will help define the landscape of Web 3.0.  The most important thing for regulators (and lawmakers) is to make sure all investors in these offerings are protected and provided with all necessary information and opportunities as provided through the current securities and commodities laws.  We believe that such regulation will come sooner rather than later.

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.