Regulation of Crypto: Who Is the Securities and Exchange Commission Protecting?

Abstract

SEC v. Telegram and SEC v. Kik, both decided in 2020, establish some ground‐breaking rules about how the federal securities laws apply to cryptotransactions. In both cases, the court concluded that a large, reputable social media company had conducted a crypto offering in violation of federal law. In neither case was fraud or other criminal conduct an issue; the sole problem was failure to register the sales or comply with an exemption from registration. To find a violation, both opinions collapsed a two‐phase offering into a single, integrated scheme. This approach appears to be an unnecessarily overbroad application of the law, protecting neither investors nor capital markets. A cost of this approach is that crypto entrepreneurs are being forced away from the United States, and American investors are denied opportunities to participate in a potentially desirable technological revolution. This article examines the rationale employed in these two decisions in light of the existing statutory and regulatory framework. It also considers recent amendments to federal rules defining the “integration doctrine,” which was relied on explicitly in the Kik decision. This article suggests how future crypto offerings might be structured to avoid the pitfalls created by the Kik and Telegram opinions. It advocates a more limited approach than the one urged by regulators. Its suggestions depend not on a change in law but only a change in understanding what is required in order to conduct a compliant crypto offering.