<!-- wp:paragraph -->
<p>The Telegram SEC fight over its proposed “Gram” release could mark a sea change for U.S. crypto law. Both sides have dug in amid <a href="https://www.scribd.com/document/430781940/Telegram-Response-to-SEC">rising tension</a>. And given the stakes—$425 million in U.S. investment—a truce seems doubtful. </p>
<!-- /wp:paragraph -->

<!-- wp:paragraph -->
<p>The SEC got an emergency order to stop Gram purchasers “<a href="https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2019-212">flooding</a>” the U.S. market by reselling Grams to retail investors. Because the <a href="https://www.sec.gov/litigation/complaints/2019/comp-pr2019-212.pdf">commission argues</a> Grams are securities, resales violate U.S. law. But <a href="https://www.scribd.com/document/430781940/Telegram-Response-to-SEC">Telegram says</a> Grams are would-be commodities once disbursed via its TON Blockchain. And the fight has turned nasty with Telegram accusing the SEC of “<a href="https://www.scribd.com/document/430781940/Telegram-Response-to-SEC">steamrolling</a>” and the commission demanding swift discovery. Without a resolution this case will go to trial and then appellate review. Indeed, this could clarify crypto law rules heretofore dictated only by SEC fiat. </p>
<!-- /wp:paragraph -->

<!-- wp:image {"id":980,"align":"center","width":314,"height":311} -->
<div class="wp-block-image"><figure class="aligncenter is-resized"><img src="https://www.thecrowdfundinglawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/do-it.gif" alt="" class="wp-image-980" width="314" height="311"/></figure></div>
<!-- /wp:image -->

<!-- wp:tadv/classic-paragraph -->
<h2 style="text-align: center;"><strong>Telegram SEC fight evolved from app’s jump from messaging to blockchain</strong></h2>
<!-- /wp:tadv/classic-paragraph -->

<!-- wp:paragraph -->
<p>Telegram’s Messenger is an encrypted app with 300 million
monthly users worldwide. Privacy focus made it a crypto favorite with <a href="https://www.sec.gov/litigation/complaints/2019/comp-pr2019-212.pdf">84%</a>
of blockchain projects having channels. But it has also become a government target.
Founder Pavel Durov left his native Russia in 2014 after clashing with its
government. And Russia <a href="https://www.cnet.com/news/russia-bans-telegram-encrypted-messaging-app/">banned</a>
Messenger over concerns of use by state enemies.</p>
<!-- /wp:paragraph -->

<!-- wp:paragraph -->
<p>Early last year Telegram raised capital for the Telegram Operation Network (TON), “designed to host a new generation of cryptocurrencies and decentralized applications, at a massive scale.” And Telegram sought to power TON through its huge user base and crypto popularity. Heavies scooped up Gram futures contracts deliverable after the blockchain buildout. As a result, Telegram raised $1.7 billion from investors discounted from projected market yields. </p>
<!-- /wp:paragraph -->

<!-- wp:tadv/classic-paragraph -->
<h2 style="text-align: center;"><strong>Are Telegram SAFTs the same as Telegrams Grams? SEC says Yes  </strong></h2>
<!-- /wp:tadv/classic-paragraph -->

<!-- wp:paragraph -->
<p>The legal issues embody the crypto conflict. Telegram sold Simple
Agreements for Future Tokens (SAFT) to accredited investors using <a href="https://www.thecrowdfundinglawyers.com/reg-d/">Regulation D</a>. Both sides
agree SAFTs are securities. But what of Grams themselves? The SEC claims the
SAFT sale began an illegal offering. Under this theory, no separation exists between
SAFTs and Grams. This is a regular capital raise because some money went to
improve Messenger, the TON Blockchain wasn’t finished, and Grams can’t buy
anything yet because would-be products don’t exist.</p>
<!-- /wp:paragraph -->

<!-- wp:paragraph -->
<p>Thus, the SEC <em>Howeys</em> Grams as “<a href="https://www.sec.gov/litigation/complaints/2019/comp-pr2019-212.pdf">investment contracts</a>.” Thus, they are securities because of profit potential for resellers whose value depends on the skill of Telegram’s team. </p>
<!-- /wp:paragraph -->

<!-- wp:paragraph -->
<p>Or in SEC speak: </p>
<!-- /wp:paragraph -->

<!-- wp:quote -->
<blockquote class="wp-block-quote"><p>A reasonable purchaser of Grams would view their investment as sharing a common interest with other purchasers of Grams as well as sharing a common interest with Defendants in profiting from the success of Grams. The fortunes of each Gram purchaser were tied to one another and to the success of the overall venture, including the development of a TON “ecosystem,” integration with Messenger, and implementation of the new TON Blockchain.</p></blockquote>
<!-- /wp:quote -->

<!-- wp:paragraph -->
<p><a href="https://www.scribd.com/document/430781940/Telegram-Response-to-SEC">Telegram
insists</a> it followed the rules by only selling SAFTs to accredited investors.
Grams themselves are a commodity like “gold, sliver, or sugar.” “SEC’s actions hinge
on a fundamentally flawed theory that Grams constitute a ‘security’ subject to
U.S. Securities laws—a theory that runs counter to longstanding Supreme Court
precedent, the SEC’s own views relating to other Cryptocurrencies, and common
sense.”</p>
<!-- /wp:paragraph -->

<!-- wp:tadv/classic-paragraph -->
<h2 style="text-align: center;"><strong>The SEC Telegram Emergency Injunction forestalls Telegram’s best argument</strong></h2>
<!-- /wp:tadv/classic-paragraph -->

<!-- wp:paragraph -->
<p>The preliminary injunction forestalled Telegram from arguing
what it wanted. If initial purchasers resold Grams to “highly interested” retail
purchasers, Telegram could say decentralized occurred via the ‘<a href="https://www.coindesk.com/secs-hinman-says-some-icos-may-be-eligible-for-no-action-relief">Hinman
Doctrine</a>.’ And like Ethereum is now beyond SEC reach. This doctrine is named
after SEC Corp Fin Director ‘Bill the Butcher’ Hinman but has <a href="https://www.thecrowdfundinglawyers.com/kik-lawsuit-must-decide-decentralization-question/">no
judicial grounding</a>. </p>
<!-- /wp:paragraph -->

<!-- wp:paragraph -->
<p>Thus, the SEC Catch 22. To claim decentralization, tokens must be widely distributed and used. But users can’t distribute them unless an open market exists. And an open market can’t exist under securities law. Indeed, issuers can’t even <a href="https://www.crowdfundinsider.com/2018/08/137933-ico-tokens-the-sec-you-cant-even-give-them-away-no-seriously/">give them away</a> for the desired decentralization. </p>
<!-- /wp:paragraph -->

<!-- wp:paragraph -->
<p>The SEC knows this: </p>
<!-- /wp:paragraph -->

<!-- wp:quote -->
<blockquote class="wp-block-quote"><p>Defendants knew, however, that to actually implement the TON Blockchain in the real world, the project would require “numerosity”: a widespread distribution and use of Grams across the globe. Indeed, by definition, the TON Blockchain can only become truly decentralized (as contemplated and promoted in the Offering Documents) if Grams holders <em>other than </em>the original Grams purchasers actually stake Grams and, thereby, act as “validators” of transactions on the TON Blockchain.  </p></blockquote>
<!-- /wp:quote -->

<!-- wp:tadv/classic-paragraph -->
<h2 style="text-align: center;"><strong>SEC demands Issuers use Reg A+ . . . Or be Ethereum</strong></h2>
<!-- /wp:tadv/classic-paragraph -->

<!-- wp:paragraph -->
<p>The commission’s only apparent answer to this puzzle is to get
<a href="https://www.thecrowdfundinglawyers.com/reg-a/">Reg A+</a> qualified like
<a href="https://www.thecrowdfundinglawyers.com/its-happening-the-blockstack-reg-a-token-sale-and-a-new-internet/">Blockstack</a>
and wait it out (or be Ethereum). &nbsp;But if
the SEC enjoins the token release that’s it because absent court findings it
has all the power. And as Crypto Czar <a href="https://www.thecrowdfundinglawyers.com/amy-winehouse-to-valerie-szczepanik-come-on-over/">NPC
Valerie</a> has stated, <a href="https://www.thecrowdfundinglawyers.com/sec-commissioners-talk-crowdfunding-crypto-before-congress/">they
like it that way</a>. </p>
<!-- /wp:paragraph -->

<!-- wp:paragraph -->
<p><a href="https://www.scribd.com/document/430781940/Telegram-Response-to-SEC">Telegram claims</a> it spent 18 months “voluntarily engaged with, and solicited feedback from, the SEC regarding development and planned launch of its decentralized blockchain platform . . .” And it produce thousands of documents and answered endless inquiries. But when the time came, it didn't even get a warning an <em>ex parte</em> emergency injunction was coming. </p>
<!-- /wp:paragraph -->

<!-- wp:image {"id":3658,"align":"center","width":335,"height":247} -->
<div class="wp-block-image"><figure class="aligncenter is-resized"><img src="https://www.thecrowdfundinglawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Sponge-Bob-Amazing-GIF.gif" alt="" class="wp-image-3658" width="335" height="247"/></figure></div>
<!-- /wp:image -->

<!-- wp:tadv/classic-paragraph -->
<h2 style="text-align: center;"><strong>SEC needs judicial oversight or more Crypto Moms</strong></h2>
<!-- /wp:tadv/classic-paragraph -->

<!-- wp:paragraph -->
<p>Without court findings this untenable situation will persist.
Commissioner Hester Peirce aka <a href="https://www.thecrowdfundinglawyers.com/crypto-mom-to-npc-valerie-get-a-job/">Crypto
Mom</a> discussed a utility-token carve out in <a href="https://www.thecrowdfundinglawyers.com/sec-commissioners-talk-crowdfunding-crypto-before-congress/">recent
congressional testimony</a>. But current commission makeup makes this unlikely.
</p>
<!-- /wp:paragraph -->

<!-- wp:paragraph -->
<p>Telegram has a <a href="https://www.crowdfundinsider.com/2019/10/152832-telegram-enforcement-action-a-reminder-that-the-sec-not-only-has-considerable-enforcement-tools-but-is-willing-to-use-them/">better fact pattern</a> than <a href="https://www.thecrowdfundinglawyers.com/kik-lawsuit-must-decide-decentralization-question/">Kik</a> having only sold to accredited investors. And it imbued its SAFT with a restrictive legend. Unlike Kik, however, it doesn’t seem to have the stomach for a long-term fight. But it may not have a choice short of rescinding a third of its raise and leaving the U.S. market.  Whatever happens here court clarity must happen. The SEC cannot always sit as judge, jury, and bankrupter.</p>
<!-- /wp:paragraph -->

<!-- wp:paragraph -->
<p>By <a href="https://twitter.com/thecrowdfundlaw">Jossey PLLC</a>
via <a href="http://www.thecrowdfundinglawyers.com">www.thecrowdfundinglawyers.com</a>
</p>
<!-- /wp:paragraph -->

<!-- wp:tadv/classic-paragraph /-->