| Next revision | Previous revision |
| howey_test [2025/08/15 01:07] – created xiaoer | howey_test [2025/08/15 07:07] (current) – created xiaoer |
|---|
| ====== The Howey Test: Your Ultimate Guide to Investment Contracts and Crypto ====== | ====== The Howey Test Explained: A Complete Guide to Investment Contracts ====== |
| **LEGAL DISCLAIMER:** This article provides general, informational content for educational purposes only. It is not a substitute for professional legal advice from a qualified attorney. Always consult with a lawyer for guidance on your specific legal situation. | **LEGAL DISCLAIMER:** This article provides general, informational content for educational purposes only. It is not a substitute for professional legal advice from a qualified attorney. Always consult with a lawyer for guidance on your specific legal situation. |
| ===== What is the Howey Test? A 30-Second Summary ===== | ===== What is the Howey Test? A 30-Second Summary ===== |
| Imagine you love oranges. You could go to the store and buy a bag of oranges to eat. That's a simple purchase. But what if a company in Florida offered you something different? Instead of just selling you oranges, they offer to sell you a small strip of their orange grove. They promise to manage the trees, harvest the fruit, sell it, and then send you a share of the profits. You never have to touch a single orange or visit Florida. You're just putting in money, hoping their work will make you more money. | Imagine you and your neighbors decide to fund a local baker to start a new pie shop. You all pitch in money, not as a loan, but because the baker promises you a share of the pie shop's profits every month. You aren't baking the pies, managing the shop, or finding customers; you're just providing the money and hoping the baker's expertise makes your investment grow. You are relying entirely on the baker's efforts for your return. In the eyes of U.S. law, this arrangement might not just be a friendly business venture—it could be a "security." The **Howey Test** is the simple, yet powerful, four-part legal yardstick created by the [[supreme_court_of_the_united_states]] to determine exactly that. It helps regulators, courts, and everyday people figure out if a financial arrangement qualifies as an "investment contract," which is a type of [[security_(finance)]]. If it is, it falls under a whole set of strict rules designed to protect investors from fraud. This test, born from a dispute over Florida orange groves in the 1940s, is now at the center of the debate over modern assets like [[cryptocurrency]]. |
| You haven't just bought oranges; you've bought an opportunity. This exact scenario is what led to the **Howey Test**. It's the U.S. Supreme Court's four-part framework used by the `[[securities_and_exchange_commission_(sec)]]` to determine if a transaction qualifies as an "investment contract," making it a type of `[[security]]`. If it is a security, it falls under strict federal laws designed to protect investors from fraud. In today's world, this nearly 80-year-old test is at the center of the debate over whether cryptocurrencies are securities, making it one of the most important legal concepts for modern entrepreneurs and investors to understand. | * **Key Takeaways At-a-Glance:** |
| * **What it is:** The **Howey Test** is a four-pronged legal test that determines if a transaction is an `[[investment_contract]]` and therefore must comply with federal `[[securities_law]]`. | * **The Four Critical Questions:** The **Howey Test** determines if a transaction is an "investment contract" by asking four questions: Is there (1) an investment of money (2) in a common enterprise (3) with a reasonable expectation of profits (4) to be derived from the entrepreneurial or managerial efforts of others? |
| * **Why it matters to you:** If you are an entrepreneur raising money or an investor putting money into a project (especially in tech or crypto), the **Howey Test** dictates the legal rules of the game, including crucial disclosure requirements and anti-fraud protections. | * **Your Protection as an Investor:** If an asset passes the **Howey Test**, it is considered a security and must be registered with the [[securities_and_exchange_commission_(sec)]], which means you are entitled to detailed, truthful information about the investment and its risks before you put your money down. |
| * **The bottom line:** If a financial arrangement involves **(1)** an investment of money **(2)** in a common enterprise **(3)** with an expectation of profits **(4)** derived from the efforts of others, it is likely a security that requires registration with the SEC or a valid exemption. | * **A Critical Hurdle for New Ventures:** For entrepreneurs and creators, especially in fields like tech and crypto, understanding the **Howey Test** is crucial, as failing to follow [[securities_law]] can lead to severe penalties and legal battles. |
| ===== Part 1: The Legal Foundations of the Howey Test ===== | ===== Part 1: The Legal Foundations of the Howey Test ===== |
| ==== The Story of the Howey Test: A Historical Journey ==== | ==== The Story of the Howey Test: A Tale of Florida Orange Groves ==== |
| The story of the Howey Test begins not in a courtroom, but in the ashes of the Great Depression. The stock market crash of 1929 exposed a financial world rife with deception, where companies could sell stock based on wildly misleading claims, wiping out the savings of millions of ordinary Americans. In response, Congress enacted landmark legislation: the `[[securities_act_of_1933]]` and the `[[securities_exchange_act_of_1934]]`. | The story of the Howey Test begins not in a high-tech lab or on Wall Street, but in the sunny orange groves of 1940s Florida. A company called the W.J. Howey Company owned large tracts of citrus groves. To finance their operations, they came up with a clever plan. They sold small parcels of their orange groves to buyers, many of whom were tourists visiting from out of state. |
| These laws created the `[[securities_and_exchange_commission_(sec)]]` and established a simple but powerful principle: if you want to sell a security to the public, you must first tell them the truth, the whole truth, about your business. This is done through a process called `[[registration]]`, which requires detailed disclosures about finances, risks, and operations. | However, this wasn't a simple real estate deal. The buyers of these small plots weren't expected to pack their bags, move to Florida, and start farming oranges. Most of them had no experience in agriculture. Alongside the land sale, Howey offered a "service contract." For a fee, a sister company, Howey-in-the-Hills, would cultivate, harvest, and market the oranges on the buyer's behalf. The investors would then receive a share of the profits from the orange sales, without ever having to lift a finger. |
| The 1933 Act included a broad definition of a `[[security]]`, listing things like stocks and bonds. Crucially, it also included the term `[[investment_contract]]` but didn't define it. This was intentional. Congress knew that clever promoters would constantly invent new schemes to raise money that looked nothing like traditional stock. The term was a catch-all, designed to be flexible. | The [[securities_and_exchange_commission_(sec)]] stepped in, arguing that this scheme wasn't just a sale of land and services; it was the sale of an "investment contract"—a type of security. The SEC claimed that Howey was essentially selling an opportunity to invest money and earn a profit from the company's farming efforts. The case, `[[sec_v_w_j_howey_co]]`, made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court. |
| This flexibility was put to the test in the 1940s by the W. J. Howey Company in Florida. Howey Co. owned large tracts of orange groves. To finance their operations, they sold small parcels of these groves to buyers, many of whom were tourists. Alongside the land sale, buyers were offered a "service contract" where another of Howey's companies would manage the groves, harvest the fruit, and market it. The buyers, who often lived out of state, were passive; they just put up the money and hoped to receive a check from the profits generated by Howey's expertise. | In its 1946 landmark decision, the Court sided with the SEC. It looked past the form of the transaction (a land sale contract) and focused on its substance and the economic reality. The Court established a four-part test to define what constitutes an investment contract for the purposes of securities law. This framework, now famously known as the Howey Test, was designed to be flexible and adaptable, protecting investors from the "countless and variable schemes" that promoters might devise to seek the use of other people's money. |
| The SEC argued this entire scheme—the land sale plus the service contract—was an `[[investment_contract]]`. Howey Co. argued they were simply selling real estate and offering an optional service. The dispute went all the way to the Supreme Court. In the 1946 case `[[sec_v_w_j_howey_co]]`, the Court sided with the SEC, establishing the four-part test that now bears the Howey name. The Court's wisdom was in creating a test that focused on the economic reality of the transaction, not its label. | ==== The Law on the Books: The Securities Act of 1933 ==== |
| ==== The Law on the Books: Statutes and Codes ==== | The Howey Test doesn't exist in a vacuum. It is an interpretation of a key piece of legislation passed in the wake of the 1929 stock market crash: the `[[securities_act_of_1933]]`. This law, often called the "truth in securities" law, has two primary goals: |
| The legal basis for the Howey Test is rooted in the definition of a "security" found in Section 2(a)(1) of the `[[securities_act_of_1933]]`. The statute states: | * To ensure investors receive significant and truthful information about securities being offered for public sale. |
| > "The term 'security' means any note, stock, treasury stock, security future, security-based swap, bond, debenture, evidence of indebtedness, certificate of interest or participation in any profit-sharing agreement, ... **investment contract,** ... or, in general, any interest or instrument commonly known as a 'security'..." | * To prohibit deceit, misrepresentations, and other fraud in the sale of securities. |
| The key phrase here is `[[investment_contract]]`. The Howey Test is not a law passed by Congress; it is the judiciary's official interpretation of what that phrase means. It is a piece of `[[case_law]]` that has the force of law. | The Act defines the term "security" very broadly. The definition includes traditional instruments like stocks and bonds, but it also includes more ambiguous terms like "evidence of indebtedness" and, most importantly, "investment contract." |
| When the SEC investigates a new investment scheme, from a real estate venture to an `[[initial_coin_offering_(ico)]]`, its lawyers don't look for a specific statute that says "this token is a security." Instead, they apply the facts of that scheme to the four prongs of the Howey Test. If the facts fit the test, the SEC will assert that the asset is an investment contract and, therefore, a security subject to its jurisdiction. This means the issuers must either register the offering with the SEC or find a valid exemption, such as those under `[[regulation_d]]` or `[[regulation_a]]`. | The lawmakers intentionally left "investment contract" vague. They knew that financial promoters are endlessly creative and would quickly find ways to structure investments to avoid a narrow, rigid definition. By including this flexible term, Congress gave the SEC and the courts the power to regulate new and unforeseen types of investment schemes that had the *characteristics* of a security, even if they were called something else. The Howey Test became the official judicial tool for analyzing whether a transaction meets that "investment contract" definition, thus bringing it under the protective umbrella of the Securities Act of 1933. |
| ==== A Nation of Contrasts: Federal vs. State Approaches ==== | ==== A Nation of Contrasts: Interpreting "Common Enterprise" ==== |
| While the Howey Test is a federal standard applied by the SEC and federal courts, investment offerings are also regulated at the state level by laws known as `[[blue_sky_laws]]`. While most states have adopted the Howey Test or a very similar standard, some have unique approaches that can create a complex regulatory patchwork for businesses. | While the Howey Test is a federal standard from the Supreme Court, its application isn't always identical across the country. The federal court system is divided into regional circuits, and different circuits have developed slightly different ways of interpreting the second prong: "in a common enterprise." This is a crucial distinction that can determine the outcome of a case depending on where it's filed. |
| Here’s a comparison of the federal approach with those in a few key states: | ^ **Type of Commonality** ^ **Explanation** ^ **What It Means for You** ^ |
| ^ Jurisdiction ^ Primary Test for Investment Contract ^ Key Distinction & Impact for You ^ | | **Horizontal Commonality** | This is the most restrictive and traditional view. It requires the pooling of investor funds into a single, collective pot. Investors share in the profits and risks of the venture together. Think of it like a mutual fund, where everyone's money is mixed. | If you invested in a project where your money was pooled with others and your returns are directly tied to the success of that entire pool, it's likely a common enterprise under this test. This is the standard used in most federal circuits. | |
| | ** | | **Broad Vertical Commonality** | This is a more lenient standard. It only requires that the investor's fortunes be linked to the promoter's efforts. If the promoter does well, the investor does well. The investors' funds don't need to be pooled together. | If your investment's success depends entirely on the expertise or work of the person or company who sold it to you, this test might be met, even if you were the only investor. This standard is less common. | |
| | | **Narrow Vertical Commonality** | This standard is a middle ground. It requires that the investor's fortunes be intertwined with the promoter's fortunes. The promoter's success must be directly tied to the investor's success, creating a shared risk. | This looks for a direct correlation between your profits/losses and the promoter's. For example, if the promoter only makes money when you make money on a commission basis, this test might be satisfied. | |
| | ===== Part 2: Deconstructing the Core Elements ===== |
| | The Howey Test is best understood by breaking it down into its four essential components, or "prongs." For a transaction to be classified as an investment contract, it must satisfy **all four** of these conditions. |
| | ==== The Anatomy of the Howey Test: The Four Prongs Explained ==== |
| | === Prong 1: An Investment of Money === |
| | This is the most straightforward prong. It simply means that an investor contributes cash or some other valuable asset to the venture. This doesn't have to be U.S. dollars. Courts have interpreted "money" broadly to include any form of capital or consideration that holds value. |
| | * **Relatable Example:** You give a startup founder $5,000 in cash to help them build their new app. This clearly satisfies the first prong. |
| | * **Modern Application (Crypto):** An investor sends 1 `[[ethereum]]` (a valuable digital asset) to a new project during its `[[initial_coin_offering_(ico)]]` in exchange for the project's new tokens. Even though it's not traditional currency, the cryptocurrency is an asset of value, thus qualifying as an "investment of money." |
| | === Prong 2: In a Common Enterprise === |
| | This prong examines the relationship between the investor and the promoter, as well as the other investors. It seeks to establish that the venture is a collective undertaking, not just a one-on-one transaction. As discussed in the table above, courts use different tests (horizontal, broad vertical, or narrow vertical commonality) to determine if this prong is met. |
| | * **Relatable Example (Horizontal):** You and 50 other people each invest $1,000 into a real estate fund. The fund manager pools all $51,000 to buy an apartment building, and you all share in the rental income proportionally. Your fortunes are tied together in a pool. |
| | * **Modern Application (Crypto):** A crypto project raises funds from thousands of investors to build a `[[decentralized_finance_(defi)]]` lending platform. The funds are used to pay developers and for marketing, and the success of the platform—and thus the value of the investors' tokens—depends on this collective effort. This would likely satisfy the horizontal commonality test. |
| | === Prong 3: With a Reasonable Expectation of Profits === |
| | This prong focuses on the investor's primary motivation. Is the person buying the asset to use or consume it, or are they buying it with the hope that its value will increase, leading to a financial return? This profit can come from capital appreciation (the asset's price goes up), dividends, or other earnings. |
| | * **Relatable Example:** You buy 100 shares of a publicly traded company. You aren't buying them to wallpaper your office; you are buying them because you expect the company to do well, causing the stock price to rise so you can sell it for a profit later. |
| | * **Modern Application (Crypto):** An investor buys a token from a project that has no current use but is heavily marketed with promises of future price increases due to the team's development roadmap and partnerships. The primary reason for purchase is clearly the expectation of profit, not to use the token for some immediate function. This was a central issue in the `[[sec_v_ripple_labs]]` case. |
| | === Prong 4: To be Derived Solely from the Efforts of Others === |
| | This is often the most contentious prong. The original test used the word "solely," but courts have since interpreted this more broadly to mean "primarily" or "substantially." The key question is: does the investor's potential for profit depend on the entrepreneurial or managerial efforts of the promoter or a third party? If the investor is a passive participant and the promoter is the one doing the essential work to make the venture successful, this prong is likely met. |
| | * **Relatable Example:** You invest in your friend's food truck business. You provide the capital for the truck, but your friend is the one developing the recipes, cooking the food, finding locations, and marketing the business. Your ability to get a return on your investment depends entirely on your friend's hard work. |
| | * **Modern Application (Crypto):** A crypto foundation creates and sells a token, promising that it will use the funds to build and maintain a new `[[blockchain]]` network, attract developers, and create an ecosystem that will increase the token's value. The investors are passive; their profit depends on the foundation's managerial and technical efforts. |
| | ==== The Players on the Field: Who's Who in a Howey Test Case ==== |
| | * **The [[Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)]]:** The primary federal regulator responsible for enforcing securities laws. The SEC investigates potential unregistered securities offerings and can bring enforcement actions, levy fines, and seek court orders to stop them. |
| | * **The Issuer/Promoter:** This is the individual, group, or company that creates the investment opportunity and seeks money from investors. In a Howey analysis, their actions, promises, and ongoing management are under intense scrutiny. |
| | * **The Investor:** The person or entity providing capital with the expectation of profit. Securities laws are designed to protect them by ensuring they receive adequate disclosures. |
| | * **Federal Courts:** Since the Howey Test is a standard of federal law, federal courts (from District Courts up to the Supreme Court) are the ultimate arbiters in disputes between the SEC and issuers. Their rulings interpret and shape how the test is applied to new technologies. |
| | ===== Part 3: Your Practical Playbook ===== |
| | ==== Step-by-Step: Assessing a Potential Investment or Project ==== |
| | Whether you're a potential investor spotting red flags or a founder trying to stay compliant, understanding how to apply the Howey Test is a crucial skill. |
| | === Step 1: Analyze the "Investment of Money" Prong === |
| | - **For Investors:** Is the project asking you to give them something of value (cash, crypto, etc.)? If so, this prong is almost certainly met. Be wary of projects that claim "it's not an investment" if they are taking your valuable assets. |
| | - **For Founders:** If you are accepting capital from outside contributors in exchange for an interest in your project (like a token), you have met this prong. |
| | === Step 2: Evaluate the "Common Enterprise" Prong === |
| | - **For Investors:** Is your money being pooled with other investors' funds? Is your potential for profit tied to the overall success of the project, not just your own individual effort? If yes, a common enterprise likely exists. |
| | - **For Founders:** Are you pooling funds from multiple investors to build a single project? If so, you are likely operating a common enterprise. |
| | === Step 3: Scrutinize the "Expectation of Profits" Prong === |
| | - **For Investors:** Why are you really buying this? Is it to use a product or service right now, or are you hoping the price goes up? Look at the project's marketing. Is it full of price predictions, "to the moon" language, and comparisons to other successful investments? These are massive red flags for a security. |
| | - **For Founders:** How are you marketing your token or interest? If your website, whitepaper, and social media focus on potential price appreciation and financial returns, you are signaling to investors an expectation of profit, which satisfies this prong. |
| | === Step 4: Assess the "Efforts of Others" Prong === |
| | - **For Investors:** After you invest, what is your role? Are you a passive participant, or are you actively involved in managing and directing the project? If you are just waiting for the management team to deliver on their promises, your profits depend on the "efforts of others." |
| | - **For Founders:** Who is responsible for the project's success? Is it a small, centralized team of developers and executives? Does the project's value depend on you making strategic partnerships, updating the code, and driving adoption? If so, this prong is met. A truly decentralized network, like [[bitcoin]], is often argued to fail this prong because there is no central group whose efforts are essential for success. |
| | ==== Essential Paperwork: Key Forms and Documents ==== |
| | If an offering is deemed a security, the issuer is legally required to deal with significant paperwork. |
| | * **[[Registration Statement]]:** Before offering securities to the public, a company must file a registration statement with the SEC. This document is broken into two parts: |
| | * **The [[Prospectus_(finance)]]:** This is the legal disclosure document that must be provided to all prospective buyers. It contains detailed information about the company's business, finances, risk factors, and management. |
| | * **Additional Information:** This part contains other information not required in the prospectus but available to the public through the SEC's EDGAR database. |
| | * **Exemptions from Registration:** Not all securities offerings must be registered. The law provides for several exemptions, such as those for private placements to accredited investors (`[[regulation_d]]`) or small-scale crowdfunding (`[[regulation_cf]]`). However, claiming an exemption still requires careful legal navigation and often involves filing specific forms with the SEC. |
| | ===== Part 4: Landmark Cases That Shaped Today's Law ===== |
| | ==== Case Study: SEC v. W.J. Howey Co. (1946) ==== |
| | * **Backstory:** As detailed earlier, a Florida company sold tracts of its orange groves to investors and offered an accompanying service contract to manage the land and share the profits. |
| | * **Legal Question:** Was this combination of a land sale and a service contract an "investment contract" under the Securities Act of 1933? |
| | * **The Holding:** The Supreme Court said yes. It established the four-part test, emphasizing that the form of the arrangement was less important than the economic reality. The investors were passive, providing capital and relying on Howey's expertise to generate a return. |
| | * **Impact on You Today:** This case created the very definition of an investment contract that is used to regulate a vast array of investments, protecting you from schemes that might be disguised as simple product sales. |
| | ==== Case Study: United Housing Foundation, Inc. v. Forman (1975) ==== |
| | * **Backstory:** Residents of a non-profit housing cooperative in New York bought "shares" that were required to lease an apartment. The shares did not pay dividends and could only be sold back to the co-op at their original price. |
| | * **Legal Question:** Were these "shares of stock" securities? |
| | * **The Holding:** The Supreme Court said no. It clarified the "expectation of profits" prong of the Howey Test. The Court ruled that the residents were motivated by a desire to acquire affordable housing (a consumptive purpose), not by an expectation of financial return. |
| | * **Impact on You Today:** This case reinforced that the name given to an instrument ("stock," "token," etc.) doesn't matter. The key is the economic reality and the motivation of the purchaser. It prevents the Howey Test from being over-extended to cover purely consumer transactions. |
| | ==== Case Study: SEC v. Ripple Labs, Inc. (2020-Present) ==== |
| | * **Backstory:** The SEC sued Ripple Labs, alleging that its sale of the digital asset XRP constituted an ongoing, unregistered securities offering of over $1.3 billion. |
| | * **Legal Question:** Is the cryptocurrency XRP an investment contract under the Howey Test? |
| | * **The Holding (Partial Summary Judgment, 2023):** In a nuanced ruling, the District Court judge found that XRP was a security when sold directly to institutional investors, as they had a clear expectation of profit based on Ripple's efforts. However, the judge ruled that XRP was **not** a security when sold to the general public on crypto exchanges ("programmatic sales") because these buyers did not necessarily know they were buying from Ripple and were not being made the same promises. This ruling is subject to appeal. |
| | * **Impact on You Today:** This is one of the most important cases in the digital asset space. It suggests that the same asset can be a security in one context and not in another, creating significant complexity. It highlights the central role that marketing and the manner of sale play in the Howey analysis for cryptocurrencies. |
| | ===== Part 5: The Future of the Howey Test ===== |
| | ==== Today's Battlegrounds: Cryptocurrency and Digital Assets ==== |
| | The nearly 80-year-old Howey Test is now the central legal framework in the battle over regulating the multi-trillion-dollar cryptocurrency market. |
| | * **The SEC's Position:** The SEC, particularly under recent leadership, has argued that most digital assets (other than [[bitcoin]]) are securities. They contend that most crypto projects are funded by selling tokens to the public with the promise that a core team of developers will improve the network, thereby increasing the token's value. This, they argue, fits squarely within the Howey framework. |
| | * **The Crypto Industry's Position:** Many in the crypto industry argue that the Howey Test is an outdated and poor fit for this new technology. They contend that many tokens are "utility tokens," designed to be used within a network, not held as investments. They also argue that truly decentralized projects have no central "promoter" whose efforts are key, thus failing the fourth prong. The industry has been pushing for `[[regulatory_clarity]]` through new legislation rather than regulation by enforcement. |
| | * **Key Debates:** The current fight is over assets like `[[ethereum]]`, tokens used in `[[non-fungible_tokens_(nfts)]]` marketplaces, and governance tokens for `[[decentralized_autonomous_organizations_(daos)]]`. Each presents a unique challenge to the traditional Howey analysis. |
| | ==== On the Horizon: How Technology and Society are Changing the Law ==== |
| | The Howey Test's future is being actively shaped by technology and calls for legal reform. |
| | * **Legislative Proposals:** Members of Congress have introduced several bills aimed at creating a new regulatory framework specifically for digital assets. These proposals could create a new definition for some crypto assets, taking them out of the SEC's jurisdiction and potentially placing them under the `[[commodity_futures_trading_commission_(cftc)]]`. |
| | * **The Rise of Decentralization:** As projects become more decentralized over time (a concept known as "progressive decentralization"), an asset that may have been a security at its initial sale could potentially morph into a non-security commodity later on. The legal and practical path for such a transformation is currently undefined and a major point of debate. |
| | * **New Forms of Investment:** The test will continue to be stretched as it's applied to new concepts like fractionalized ownership of digital art, tokenized real estate, and novel DeFi instruments. The core principles of Howey—protecting passive investors who rely on the efforts of others—will remain, but how courts apply them will continue to evolve for decades to come. |
| | ===== Glossary of Related Terms ===== |
| | * **[[Blockchain]]:** A distributed, immutable digital ledger that records transactions. |
| | * **[[Bitcoin]]:** The first decentralized cryptocurrency, widely considered a commodity, not a security. |
| | * **[[Commodity_Futures_Trading_Commission_(CFTC)]]:** The U.S. federal agency that regulates derivatives markets, including futures contracts for commodities like oil and, increasingly, Bitcoin. |
| | * **[[Cryptocurrency]]:** A digital or virtual currency that uses cryptography for security. |
| | * **[[Decentralized_Finance_(DeFi)]]:** A sector of the crypto industry that aims to build financial services on public blockchains without traditional intermediaries. |
| | * **[[Ethereum]]:** A decentralized blockchain platform that enables smart contracts and decentralized applications (DApps). |
| | * **[[Initial_Coin_Offering_(ICO)]]:** A fundraising method used by crypto projects to sell a new token to the public. |
| | * **[[Investment_Contract]]:** A transaction where a person invests money in a common enterprise with the expectation of profits from the efforts of others; a type of security. |
| | * **[[Non-Fungible_Token_(NFT)]]:** A unique digital asset representing ownership of a specific item or piece of content on a blockchain. |
| | * **[[Prospectus_(finance)]]:** A legal document required by the SEC that provides detailed information about an investment offering for sale to the public. |
| | * **[[Regulation_D]]:** A set of SEC rules that provides exemptions from registration for certain private securities offerings. |
| | * **[[Security_(finance)]]:** A tradable financial asset, such as a stock, bond, or investment contract. |
| | * **[[Securities_Act_of_1933]]:** The primary federal law governing the issuance of new securities. |
| | * **[[Securities_and_Exchange_Commission_(SEC)]]:** The U.S. government agency responsible for protecting investors and regulating the securities markets. |
| | * **[[Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States]]:** The highest court in the federal judiciary, whose rulings (like in *Howey*) set binding legal precedent. |
| | ===== See Also ===== |
| | * [[securities_law]] |
| | * [[securities_act_of_1933]] |
| | * [[securities_and_exchange_commission_(sec)]] |
| | * [[sec_v_w_j_howey_co]] |
| | * [[sec_v_ripple_labs]] |
| | * [[investment_contract]] |
| | * [[cryptocurrency]] |