Blockchain Legal Resource

On September 9, 2018, the SEC announced the temporary trading suspension of two securities known as Bitcoin Tracker One (“CXBTF”) and Ether Tracker One (“CETHF”). According to the SEC’s order, the broker-dealer application materials submitted to enable the offer and sale of these products in the United States, as well as certain trading websites, characterize them as “Exchange Traded Funds.” According to the SEC, other public sources characterize the instruments as “Exchange Traded Notes.” By contrast, the SEC observed that the issuer of these securities characterizes them in its offering materials as “non-equity linked certificates.” CXBTF and CETHF are listed and traded on the NASDAQ/OMX in Stockholm and have recently been quoted on OTC Link (formerly known as the “pink sheets”) in the U.S. The SEC temporarily suspended trading in these securities in light of apparent confusion among market participants regarding the characteristics of these instruments.

Recently, several states have passed legislation allowing the use of smart contracts and blockchain technology in various commercial contexts. A “smart contract” is commonly defined in such legislation as an event-driven program or computerized transaction protocol that runs on a distributed, decentralized, shared and replicated ledger that executes a contract or any provision(s) of a contract by taking custody over and instructing transfer of assets on the ledger. 

On August 28, 2018, as reported in Business Insurance, Lloyd’s of London underwriters have agreed to insure digital currency storage company, Kingdom Trust Co., against theft and destruction of cryptocurrency assets. The cover comes after almost a decade-long search by Kingdom Trust for insurance to cover its cryptoassets. According to Business Insurance, Kingdom Trust sees the availability of insurance as a key factor in bringing institutional investors into the marketplace by dispelling concerns about lack of traditional safeguards in the emerging cryptoasset space.

Recently, the International Law Section of the New York State Bar Association published its annual International Law Practicum issue featuring an extensive collection of articles discussing cryptocurrency regulation in various jurisdictions around the world. Hunton Andrews Kurth partner Torsten Kracht served as editor of the issue, and associate Mayme Donohue contributed an article called “Blockchain and Cryptocurrency: An Introduction and Primer.”

Articles are reprinted with permission by the New York State Bar Association, One Elk Street, Albany, NY 12207.

As we previously reported, in May 2018, more than 40 state and provincial securities regulators in the United States and Canada launched a coordinated enforcement sweep of the ICO market dubbed “Operation Cryptosweep.” On August 28, 2018, the North American Securities Administrators Association (“NASAA”) published a press release with an update on the progress of this initiative. According to NASAA, more than 200 active investigations of ICOs and cryptocurrency-related investment products are currently underway, and blue sky regulators have brought 46 enforcement actions to date.

This post has been updated. 

On August 22, 2018, following its recent decision denying the application of the Winklevoss Bitcoin Trust, the SEC denied applications for nine more Bitcoin ETFs. The orders involving applications by Cboe BZX and NYSE Arca (here and here) are similar to each other and cite many of the same reasons for denial. As with the Winklevoss application, the SEC went out of its way to emphasize that “its disapproval does not rest on an evaluation of whether bitcoin, or blockchain technology more generally, has utility or value as an innovation or an ...

A recent settled SEC enforcement action against an ICO issuer (the “Company”) and its promoter calls into question the viability of the “airdrop” model of distributing digital tokens to investors. In the ICO context, an “airdrop” generally refers to the widespread distribution of digital tokens to community members either for free or in exchange for performing menial tasks. Whether such a distribution model runs afoul of the federal securities laws has been the subject of much debate in recent months, and the SEC’s case provides additional insight into their analysis of the issue. While a narrow path for airdrops may remain, the case will significantly curtail their current use.

On August 9, 2018, the World Bank issued a press release highlighting what it described as the “World’s First Blockchain Bond.” It will be issued in Australia and, according to news reports, will be called a BONDI—both in honor of the famous Australian beach and also a clever acronym for “Blockchain Offered New Debt Instrument.” The issue size is approximately AUD $100 million (about USD $74 million).

Current regulations in the United States limit the ability of securities to trade exclusively over a blockchain, but over time we believe they will become more commonplace ...

On August 6, 2018, the Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") published a notice seeking public comment as to whether broad-based changes in the economy, evolving business practices, new technologies or international developments might require adjustments to competition and consumer protection law, enforcement priorities and policy. The notice, published in the Federal Register, does not specifically mention blockchain or distributed ledger technology specifically, but the broad list of topics that the FTC lists as areas in which it seeks comments could easily accommodate market developments due to the emergence of blockchain technology and related applications. 

Recently, the federal Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (“OCC”) announced that it is now accepting applications for national bank charters from nondepository banking institutions. Numerous consumer groups and state banking agencies have publicly expressed their dissatisfaction with the concept of a national “FinTech charter,” and it is likely one or more of these groups will sue the OCC over the legality of the new form of charter. However, assuming that the OCC prevails in the oncoming litigation, the FinTech charter may present an attractive alternative to ...