The Chamber advocates a two-layer analysis. It asks the court to thoroughly consider what the term “digital assets” means. Accordingly, the court needs to understand whether there is an investment contract that is offered in a securities transaction. And whether the investment contract envisions a commodity that is subject to a traditional commercial transaction.
To remind, this is where the essence of the dispute lies. The two parties are trying to determine whether a token sale constitutes an investment contract. According to Telegram, Gram investors should not expect profits for buying and holding the token. Hence, they argue, the token isn’t a security.
The Chamber also asked the court to take into account the fact that digital assets shouldn’t be qualified as securities just because they’re based on blockchain. It also added that the disclosures required by the securities laws “serve little purpose with respect to commercial transactions in the digital assets themselves.”
Besides, the Chamber suggested that more agencies should scrutinize the matter. Not just the SEC. These agencies include, for instance, CFTC. The issue may also be subject to “the Bank Secrecy Act, federal and state consumer protection laws, state money transmitter licensing laws, and state laws specific to virtual currency transactions, such as New York’s Virtual Currency Business Activity law.”
Recently, Altcoin Buzz reported that Telegram cleared the air regarding the project. In an official press release, Telegram elucidated TON’s setup and its regulatory compliance.
