Partnered With:

Why was the compliance project Props ordered by regulators to stop issuing tokens

Read this article in 11 Minutes

Lessons from digital securities offerings

Props Brings out the Truth about 'RegA'

By Zachary O. Fallon

Zachary O. Fallon, the chief author of the SEC's RegA regulation and a former SEC corporate finance department and general counsel, recently took note of Props' announcement that it was closing its coin offeringThe announcement, and published the following article about it:

I'm sorry, but Open Props' recent announcement that it is ending its Offerings of Reg A-based digital asset securities (Props) and its support for its Props Loyalty program has brought me to A grim conclusion.

While compliant, Reg A is not friendly to the industry itself, investors, or regulatory options available to cryptocurrency-related companies that intend to continue offering and selling investment contracts.

I weighed my words carefully, so let me explain.

SEC review and qualification certification

All companies seeking to qualify with the SECURITIES and Exchange Commission (SEC) for a statement of RegA issuance are subject to a review process by SEC staff. This process involves staff conducting substantive reviews and comments on the company's distribution materials. This back-and-forth prompts companies to fully disclose their business plans and financial conditions in order to provide investors with the information they need to make informed investment decisions.

While all companies seeking to qualify for Reg A issuance go through the same process, crypto companies seeking exemptions have so far been the first to face unique challenges in the vetting and qualifying process. In short, as early adopters of Reg A cryptocurrencies, their mission is to set A great precedent in the digital asset industry by developing strong, public cryptocurrency companies' businesses, networks, tokens, and financial disclosures while meeting SEC staff review and comment.

It's not an easy (or cheap) task, and it's one with no extra reward. Thank them for any projects that come after them.

In addition, crypto firms like Open Props, which strive to offer and sell their tokens in a compliant ongoing digital asset offering, don't necessarily get any exemptions from the initial qualification and review process. The Reg A process for an ongoing offering requires the Company to continually evaluate (as long as the offering is ongoing) whether any change in the disclosure in its offering materials requires A separate filing with the SEC and qualification to proceed with the offering. This imposes significant ongoing compliance and oversight obligations on the companies and their counsel, involving frequent contact with the SEC staff responsible for their filings. This obligation is independent of any continuing, periodic reporting requirements.

Crypto companies, whose business is often inseparable from the issuance of the network's native digital assets, must be keenly aware of ongoing compliance in order to be able to continue not only their issuance but also the operation of their networks. In short, if A crypto company ceases an ongoing Reg A digital asset offering due to A failure to comply with A material (or greater) change in its business, network, tokens, and/or finances, it effectively ceases the company's ongoing business operations.

Reg A is A hard and fast rule for crypto companies that are launching on an ongoing basis, so be wary.

HoweWill the test shadow always exist?

* The Howe Test is a U.S. Supreme Court decision on whether a transaction can be defined as a security offering.

For crypto companies issuing digital assets, getting into Reg A is hard, but getting out is even harder.

Why is that? Because, while the securities law status of digital assets issued under Reg A is not in dispute, the facts and circumstances surrounding the execution of transactions in those assets may change over time and thus no longer constitute securities transactions. And while the company issuing these assets may initially be the appropriate party for securities law disclosure obligations and related liabilities relating to these assets, that may not be the case in two or three years. It depends on the conditions. But, in any case, good luck persuading anyone responsible for regulating securities markets to admit that trading in a particular digital asset was once a matter of securities law and no longer a matter of securities law. At least,XRP problemUntil it's settled.

So, for crypto companies, Reg A is A hard and fast rule, with constant vigilance, but no exit mechanism (currently).

Lack of liquidity

While the SEC, its chairman, and SEC staff have been clear that digital asset offerings typically involve the offering and sale of securities, until recently they have been reluctant to provide guidance or assistance to regulated intermediaries involved in the size issuance of compliant digital asset securities. This is not necessarily for good reason. For example, the SIPC(Securities Investor Protection Corporation) has provisions that protect securities investors from losses caused by a brokerage firm's mistakes. But at the same time, holders of compliant public offerings of digital asset securities are largely limited in their ability to find liquidity.

All in all, Reg A is A hard and fast rule for crypto companies and their network participants, with constant vigilance, no exit mechanism (currently), and severely limited liquidity.

Props

For these reasons, the Reg A path to public digital asset securities offerings and aftermarkets for compliance in the United States has been and will continue to be the exception rather than the rule. I applaud companies like Open Props for making great efforts to comply with the laws of the United States. However, while certainly unfortunate for them and their constituency, the results of their efforts show me a flaw in perhaps the only viable regulatory exemption path for compliant public digital asset securities offerings in the United States.

I supported Props' efforts from the beginning, and I continue to support them today.

About the author:

Zachary is a consultant, consultant and attorney with more than a decade of practice and regulatory experience advising companies, investors and market participants, including their compliance obligations under the federal securities laws. He spent nine years in the SEC's Corporate Finance Department and the Office of General Counsel. Prior to joining the SEC, he worked at Latham & AMP; Watkins's practice. He is an expert in small firm capital formation and various registration exemptions under the Securities Act of 1933. Zachary played a key role in many of the SEC's post-Jobs policy decisions. He was the chief author of the RegA regulation and the issuer of the SECURITIES and Exchange Commission's proposed exemptions for in-state and regional crowdfunding. He is a frequent speaker on crowdfunding and related issues under federal securities laws.