Digital Assets

Subscribe to Digital Assets via RSS

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) announced today that it would hire 20 additional positions to the Crypto Assets and Cyber Unit (formerly known as the Cyber Unit) within the Division of Enforcement, increasing the number of dedicated positions to 50. The “Crypto Unit” is tasked with protecting investors in crypto markets and from cyber-related threats.  With more personnel and resources available, the SEC believes the unit will be “better equipped to police wrongdoing in the crypto markets” while still staying involved in disclosure and controls issues with respect to cybersecurity.

According to the release, the 20 additional hires will include supervisors, investigative staff attorneys and fraud analysts, with a focus on investigating securities law violations in: crypto asset offerings, exchanges, and lending and staking products; decentralized finance (“DeFi”) platforms; non-fungible tokens (“NFTs”); and stablecoins.

As we stated in a recent post, statements and proposals by financial regulators suggest that providers should expect more scrutiny and additional compliance hurdles going forward.

In a speech given this week at Columbia University by Fabio Panetta, Member of the Executive Board of the European Central Bank (ECB), he decried the entire “crypto gamble,” seeing crypto-assets as “bringing about instability and insecurity – the exact opposite of what they promised” and calling for tighter regulation in the EU (and coordination with international partners) to curb the financial and associated risks from crypto-assets.

Panetta’s speech (entitled “For a few cryptos more: the Wild West of crypto finance”) evoked remarks made by SEC Chair Gary Gensler back in August 2021 that labeled crypto the “Wild West” and requested Congress give the Commission more authority “to write rules for and attach guardrails to crypto trading and lending” that would boost consumer trust and allow the industry to prosper.  Panetta’s scathing broadside was lobbed against what he sees as the risky, seamier side of crypto – the speculative fervor and greed, the high volatility of crypto markets, the facilitation of criminal financial activity, the lack of adequate disclosures, the largely unregulated or “insufficiently supervised” cryptocurrency miners and service providers, and other un- or under-regulated aspects of the “crypto bubble” that, if left ignored, could pose risks to financial stability (citing the sub-prime mortgage market that triggered the last global financial crisis). While far more strident in tone than President Biden’s March 2022 executive order, Panetta’s speech similarly articulated a high-level strategy for regulating and fostering innovation in the burgeoning digital assets space and pushed for central banks to move more quickly to develop central bank digital currencies (CBDCs) and “respond to the people’s growing demand for digital assets and a digital currency by making sovereign money fit for the digital age” or else sit by as the private sector satisfies this demand.

Taking a wide view, Fabio Panetta’s remarks, coupled with the multiple crypto-related regulatory developments ongoing both in the EU and U.S., suggest that some changes are afoot for the crypto industry. While there has been some industry-friendly legislation at the state level in recent years to encourage innovation, at the federal level it seems that the honeymoon period of light touch or no regulation (or largely, regulation by agency enforcement) for the crypto industry is over. Innovation in this space continues at a furious pace at the same time as regulators are slowly gaining experience and expertise about the public policy and investor risks surrounding crypto-assets. Thus, providers should expect more scrutiny and additional compliance hurdles going forward, as multiple regulators have stated that the lasting innovations and societal benefits of cryptocurrencies and DeFi applications can only occur alongside responsible regulation. Panetta stated that pulling off such responsible oversight will not be easy, as there will be “complex trade-offs, balancing the goals of promoting innovation, preserving financial stability and ensuring consumer protection.”

Last month, our post about art NFTs and the DMCA highlighted the distinction between non-fungible tokens and the copyrighted works they represent. In the context of copyright, this dichotomy is generally uncontroversial: In most cases, an NFT merely points to an underlying work but does not contain a copy of the work it represents, and so it is conceptually and legally separate from that work for copyright purposes. But NFTs can be used to signify ownership of products beyond digital artworks—and where those products involve trademarks, new legal issues arise.

Enter Nike: On February 3, the apparel and footwear giant sued StockX, an online resale marketplace for sneakers and other collectibles, in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging trademark infringement in connection with StockX’s issuance of NFTs featuring Nike sneakers. In the complaint, Nike asserts that these Nike-branded “Vault NFTs”—which StockX’s website says merely track ownership of a physical pair of sneakers in the company’s possession, like a virtual claims ticket or receipt—are in fact “new virtual products.” (Nike v. StockX LLC, No. 22-00983 (S.D.N.Y. filed Feb. 3, 2022)). In their March 31 answer, StockX reasserts their website’s position and insists that “Vault NFTs are absolutely not ‘virtual products’ or digital sneakers” (emphasis in original). StockX instead claims that the Vault NFTs are merely a convenient use of new technology that allows buyers to track ownership without having to possess the physical sneaker, such that the “owner can make a future trade without incurring transaction costs, delay, or risk of damage or loss associated with shipping physical sneakers to StockX and then to the ultimate recipients.”

Back in January, the U.S. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve (the “Federal Reserve”) released its long-awaited discussion paper, “Money and Payments: The U.S. Dollar in the Age of Digital Transformation” (the “Report”), beginning a public dialogue about central bank digital currencies (“CBDCs”) and weighing the merits of a U.S. CBDC.

For the purposes of the Report, a CBDC is defined as a “digital liability of a central bank that is widely available to the general public” and further, a “digital form of paper money.” In this respect, a CBDC is like a stablecoin because a CBDC also seeks to maintain a stable value and become an alternate payment mechanism that can be used to facilitate trading and lending, lessen the friction surrounding cross-border payments, and help foster more financial inclusion. However, unlike a stablecoin backed by reference assets like a national currency, commodities, or another digital asset, a U.S. CBDC (i.e., a digital dollar) would be backed by the full faith and credit of the United States in the same way as a physical dollar and, as described in the Report, would be digital money that is “free from credit risk and liquidity risk.” Thus, as discussed in our recent post on stablecoins, a CBDC enjoys many of the same benefits as stablecoins and, as described in the Report, “could spur innovation by banks and other actors and would be a safer deposit substitute than many other products, including stablecoins and other types of nonbank money.”  Still, the Report suggests that CBDCs may bring their own risks to the safety and stability of the monetary system, particularly during times of financial stress, and otherwise affect the Fed’s ability to implement monetary policy. Plus, there is the added complexity of harnessing and updating the government’s infrastructure to launch such a digital dollar.  On the whole, the Report cautions that a CBDC “could fundamentally change the structure of the U.S. financial system.”

Kryptonite is a fictional substance that causes the mighty Superman to lose all his strength. According to a recent release from the U.S. Department of Labor Employee Benefits Security Administration (“DOL”), cryptocurrency might carry similar dangers for otherwise strong and healthy 401(k) plan accounts. That is, in DOL’s view, the benefits of cryptocurrency in 401(k) plans may prove to be just as fictional as kryptonite, thereby causing significant risks of losses for retirement security.

On March 10, 2022, DOL issued Compliance Assistance Release No. 2022-01 (the “Release”) to caution plan fiduciaries to exercise extreme care before considering whether to include investment options like cryptocurrency as part of a 401(k) plan’s investment menu. In so doing, DOL raised five key concerns associated with offering these types of investment options.

On March 9, 2022, the President issued an Executive Order (the “E.O.”) that articulates a high-level, wide-ranging national strategy for regulating and fostering innovation in the burgeoning digital assets space.  The strategy is intended to encourage innovation yet still provide adequate oversight to control systemic risks and the attendant investor, business, consumer and environmental concerns.

The E.O. is very broad in scope.  It focuses on the myriad of issues associated with “digital assets,” a term defined in a way to capture a wide variety of existing and emerging “crypto” implementations.  Specifically, the E.O. defines digital assets to include “all central bank digital currencies (CBDCs), regardless of the technology used, and to other representations of value, financial assets and instruments, or claims that are used to make payments or investments, or to transmit or exchange funds or the equivalent thereof, that are issued or represented in digital form through the use of distributed ledger technology.” Significantly, the E.O. does not make an attempt at defining the regulatory status of digital assets and notes a digital asset “may be, among other things, a security, a commodity, a derivative, or other financial product.”

While the E.O. itself doesn’t really set forth any new requirements, it puts into motion a process that may yield specific regulatory approaches to digital assets.  Of course, this process is happening in parallel with other initiatives by the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) and Congress itself and thus, there is a possibility that the E.O will result in approaches that are in ways inconsistent with other ongoing regulatory developments.  For example, in January 2022 the SEC released a proposal that would enhance investor protections and cybersecurity for alternative trading systems that trade Treasuries and other government securities.  The proposal prompted a dissenting statement from SEC Commissioner Hester Peirce (often referred to as “Crypto Mom” for her advocacy of the industry), who objected to the speed and breadth of the January 2022 proposal.  The E.O. sidesteps some of the controversial issues addressed in the SEC proposal, such as how “exchanges” should be defined, as well as the greater issue of how different digital assets should be classified (and therefore, which financial regulatory agencies have jurisdiction over various digital products and platforms). At the same time, there seems to be some amount of bipartisan interest in Congress to pass its own legislation regulating certain aspects of cryptocurrency and related technologies (e.g., in the stablecoin area), Whether or not that legislation would be consistent with the results of the E.O.-driven processes is also hard to tell.

Cryptocurrency, social media, and celebrity or influencer endorsements have all been top of mind recently, including for advertisers. A newly filed lawsuit is asking a federal court to consider the intersection of these areas, with potential implications for advertisers looking to expand into the cryptocurrency space. EthereumMax executives (“Executive Defendants”)…

On 19 January 2022, the UK Financial Conduct Authority (“FCA”) published a consultation paper (CP22/2) (the “Consultation”) setting out its proposals to strengthen its financial promotion rules for high-risk investments (including cryptoassets), as well as for authorised firms which approve and communicate such financial promotions. The Consultation builds on feedback received to its discussion paper (DP21/1) on how the FCA could strengthen financial promotion rules and also forms part of its ongoing work on addressing harm in the consumer investment sector, to pursue its Consumer Investments Strategy as published in September 2021.

The proposals set out in the Consultation relate to financial promotions for “high-risk investments,” being those which are subject to marketing restrictions under the FCA rules. This includes investment based-crowdfunding, peer-to-peer agreements, other non-readily realisable securities, non-mainstream pooled investments and speculative illiquid securities. The FCA has also confirmed that these will also include cryptoassets once they are brought into scope of the FCA’s financial promotions regime. Some of the key changes the FCA is seeking to implement, as set out in the Consultation, are as follows: