<!-- wp:paragraph -->
<p> Americans’ concerns abound. Will they get that raise? How are their kids doing in school? Is that ransomware email claiming recorded porn watching real? But one concern tops the rest. What is Securities and Exchange Commission ‘Senior Advisor for Digital Assets and Innovation’ Valerie Szczepanik, aka <a href="http://www.thecrowdfundinglawyers.com/2019/04/14/amy-winehouse-to-valerie-szczepanik-come-on-over/">NPC Valerie</a>, doing for her taxpayer-funded quarter-million dollar salary, benefits, cross-country junkets, and pension? Alas, the question on everyone’s mind has now penetrated the SEC’s highest levels via Commissioner Hester Peirce, aka <a href="http://www.thecrowdfundinglawyers.com/2019/03/14/cryptomom-versus-the-machine/">Crypto Mom</a>. </p>
<!-- /wp:paragraph -->

<!-- wp:image {"id":2052,"align":"center","width":448,"height":278} -->
<div class="wp-block-image"><figure class="aligncenter is-resized"><img src="https://www.thecrowdfundinglawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/NPC-Valerie.jpg" alt="NPC Valerie" class="wp-image-2052" width="448" height="278"/><figcaption><strong>NPC Valerie</strong></figcaption></figure></div>
<!-- /wp:image -->

<!-- wp:tadv/classic-paragraph -->
<h3 style="text-align: center;"><strong>NPC Valerie is the 'Machine' personified&nbsp;</strong></h3>
<!-- /wp:tadv/classic-paragraph -->

<!-- wp:paragraph -->
<p>Ms. Szczepanik is a card-carrying member of the ‘<a href="http://www.thecrowdfundinglawyers.com/2019/03/14/cryptomom-versus-the-machine/">Machine</a>’:
the credential-and-prestige obsessed cabal of East Coast lawyers and
fancy-degreed personages that land each year at name-brand federal agencies to
direct the American experiment while disclaiming responsibility for the
results. These personages don’t <em>do</em>
anything. They exist to build media profiles, attend conferences, banquets,
other soirees on the taxpayer dime.&nbsp; </p>
<!-- /wp:paragraph -->

<!-- wp:paragraph -->
<p>Boredom or dollar signs eventually shunt most to an NGO,
nonprofit, white-shoe law firm, lobbying shop, or other influence-peddling post.
</p>
<!-- /wp:paragraph -->

<!-- wp:paragraph -->
<p>Yet, no one questions any of this. Since the <a href="https://dailycaller.com/2013/10/31/why-does-charles-krauthammer-love-the-new-deal/">New Deal</a>, it’s the price the intellectual class has imposed on us for the privilege of being Americans.  But given the stakes and potential blockchain and digital currencies proffer, some have grown annoyed with SEC Machine protocol. <a href="https://www.crowdfundinsider.com/">Crowdfund Insider</a> a house organ for Machine securities lawyers <a href="https://www.crowdfundinsider.com/2019/05/146775-has-the-sec-slammed-the-brakes-on-blockchain-innovation/">recently criticized</a> Chairman Jay Clayton’s leadership.  </p>
<!-- /wp:paragraph -->

<!-- wp:tadv/classic-paragraph -->
<h3 style="text-align: center;"><strong>Crypto Mom is the lone voice challenging NPC Valerie and the 'Machine'&nbsp;</strong></h3>
<!-- /wp:tadv/classic-paragraph -->

<!-- wp:image {"id":2049,"align":"center","width":476,"height":297} -->
<div class="wp-block-image"><figure class="aligncenter is-resized"><img src="https://www.thecrowdfundinglawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/cryptomom-1.png" alt="Crypto Mom" class="wp-image-2049" width="476" height="297"/><figcaption><strong>Crypto Mom</strong></figcaption></figure></div>
<!-- /wp:image -->

<!-- wp:paragraph -->
<p>But as someone more concerned with the U.S. economy than state dinners, Crypto Mom’s criticism is more weighted.. </p>
<!-- /wp:paragraph -->

<!-- wp:paragraph -->
<p>In <a href="https://www.crowdfundinsider.com/2019/05/147252-like-a-jackson-pollock-painting-sec-commissioner-hester-peirce-criticizes-commissions-approach-to-digital-assets-says-it-has-stifled-growth/">describing</a> the SEC’s crypto Rube Goldberg guidance, she aims straight, even at NPC-in-charge, Ms. Szczepanik. Moreover, she skewers the Commission’s years-long refusal to approve any Reg A+ token sales. And her plain English comments, lacking hide-the-ball cant surely had SEC staff scrambling to decode her <a href="https://cdn.crowdfundinsider.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/SEC-Hester-Peirce-How-We-Howey.pdf">message</a>:</p>
<!-- /wp:paragraph -->

<!-- wp:tadv/classic-paragraph -->
<h3 style="text-align: center;"><strong>Crypto Mom unloads on SEC crypto guidance mess</strong></h3>
<!-- /wp:tadv/classic-paragraph -->

<!-- wp:quote -->
<blockquote class="wp-block-quote"><p>The SEC staff recently <a href="https://www.thecrowdfundinglawyers.com/amy-winehouse-to-valerie-szczepanik-come-on-over/">issued a framework </a>to assist issuers with conducting a <em>Howey</em> analysis of potential token offerings. The document is a thorough 14 pages. It points to features of an offering and actions by an issuer that could signal that the offering is likely a securities offering. If this framework helps issuers understand what the different <em>Howey</em> Factors might look like in an ICO context, it may be valuable. I am concerned, however, that it could raise more questions and concerns than it answers.</p></blockquote>
<!-- /wp:quote -->

<!-- wp:quote -->
<blockquote class="wp-block-quote"><p>While <em>Howey</em> has four factors to consider, the framework lists 38 separate considerations, many of which include several sub-points. A seasoned securities lawyer might be able to infer which of these considerations will likely be controlling and might therefore be able to provide the appropriate weight to each. Whether the framework gives anything new to the seasoned securities lawyer used to operating in the facts and circumstances world of <em>Howey</em> is an open question. I worry that non-lawyers and lawyers not steeped in securities law and its attendant lore will not know what to make of the guidance. </p></blockquote>
<!-- /wp:quote -->

<!-- wp:quote -->
<blockquote class="wp-block-quote"><p>Pages worth of factors, many of which seemingly apply to all decentralized networks, might contribute to the feeling that navigating the securities laws in this area is perilous business . . . </p></blockquote>
<!-- /wp:quote -->

<!-- wp:image {"id":398,"align":"center","width":589,"height":332} -->
<div class="wp-block-image"><figure class="aligncenter is-resized"><img src="http://www.thecrowdfundinglawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/dwight-2.gif" alt="" class="wp-image-398" width="589" height="332"/></figure></div>
<!-- /wp:image -->

<!-- wp:tadv/classic-paragraph -->
<h3 style="text-align: center;"><strong>Crypto Mom: TurnKey Jet No-Action Letter Should Not Have Been Published&nbsp;</strong></h3>
<!-- /wp:tadv/classic-paragraph -->

<!-- wp:quote -->
<blockquote class="wp-block-quote"><p>This transaction is so clearly not an offer of securities that I worry the staff’s issuance of a digital token no-action letter—the first and so far only such letter—may in fact have the effect of broadening the perceived reach of our securities laws. If these tokens were securities, it would be hard to distinguish them from any medium of stored value. Is a Starbucks card a security? If we are going that far, I can only imagine what name the barista will write on my coffee cup</p></blockquote>
<!-- /wp:quote -->

<!-- wp:quote -->
<blockquote class="wp-block-quote"><p>And yet, the staff’s letter did not stop at merely stating that the token offering would not qualify as a securities offering, but highlighted specific but non-dispositive factors. In other words, the letter effectively imposed conditions on a non-security . . . </p></blockquote>
<!-- /wp:quote -->

<!-- wp:quote -->
<blockquote class="wp-block-quote"><p>I do not believe there was anything gray about the area in which TurnKey planned to operate, but issuing this letter may give the false impression that there was.</p></blockquote>
<!-- /wp:quote -->

<!-- wp:tadv/classic-paragraph -->
<h3 style="text-align: center;"><strong>Lack of Reg A+ token sales is a glaring SEC failure </strong></h3>
<!-- /wp:tadv/classic-paragraph -->

<!-- wp:quote -->
<blockquote class="wp-block-quote"><p>Unlike a private offering, however, a Regulation A offering must be qualified by the SEC before the issuer can begin raising money. Although several companies seeking to issue tokens have begun the process, none has yet had its Regulation A offerings qualified. The lack of progress is not only difficult for the companies that remain in limbo, unable to move forward with raising capital, but also may scare off other companies. These companies may opt for a private offering instead, depriving the general public of the opportunity to invest, and also depriving the market of the public disclosure of the information included in the Regulation A offering materials</p></blockquote>
<!-- /wp:quote -->

<!-- wp:paragraph -->
<p>It would be nice to think Crypto Mom’s criticisms will spur some paradigm shift in SEC protocol. But that is as likely as the Commission declaring itself a separate country. Crypto Mom’s name came from her distinct stances. And even another three commissioner-level crypto moms would little effect. They would battle—directly or discreetly—the hordes of NPC Valeries roaming the Commission’s austere halls. Indeed, staff controls most chores because little jumps to commissioner level and still less gets to Congress. For now, we must hope Crypto Mom continues Crypto Momming and some crypto dust infiltrates Commission thinking. One can hope. </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 -->