BlockTelegraph

*
*
*
*
*
Policymakers on Capitol Hill continue to discuss the practicality of a digital dollar. Electronic currency makes money transfers faster and less expensive, yet the topic continues to cause controversy and debate between the political parties. The advent of inflation and a number of other economic factors has led certain financial experts to examine the possible shift from the dollar’s global dominance, which has given rise to even more discussion about the need for a digital dollar. Sydney Maidza, CEO of XTrend Speed, an award-winning forex mobile trading platform, follows this arena closely and shares insights for those following this area of the industry.

“There are three main areas to track as they pertain to the volatility of the U.S. dollar,” says Maidza:

* **Federal Reserve Policy:** The Federal Reserve’s interest rate decisions significantly impact the dollar’s value. Anticipation of rate hikes or changes in monetary policy will lead to fluctuations.
* **Global Economic Conditions:** A weakening global economy or geopolitical tensions could trigger investors to seek safe-haven assets, potentially strengthening the dollar.
* **Trade Wars and Tariffs:** Trade disputes between the US and other countries can create uncertainty and impact currency valuations.

“Thus, traders can expect heightened volatility in the forex market,” he shares. “This means there will be more opportunities for profit but also higher risks. Major currency pairs involving the U.S. dollar, such as EUR/USD, GBP/USD, and USD/JPY, will likely see increased price fluctuations.”

He continues, “Besides, forex traders will pay close attention to market sentiment, which can shift rapidly based on news and economic reports. Sentiment-driven trades can lead to sudden and sharp movements in currency prices. Furthermore, changes in U.S. interest rates relative to other countries will impact the carry trade, where traders borrow in low-interest currencies to invest in higher-interest ones. This will influence demand for the U.S. dollar.”

Maidza’s XTrend Speed team is laser-focused on being able to support traders in this space as they face the high winds of volatile market conditions. The suite of offerings now includes:

* **Real-Time Market Analysis:** XTrend Speed provides live-streaming analysis and real-time market updates, helping traders stay informed about the latest developments that could impact the forex market. Access to timely information is crucial for making informed trading decisions.
* **Advanced Analytical Tools:** We offer a suite of analytical tools such as AI-powered market monitoring that can help traders identify trends and patterns amidst market volatility. It manages risk by continuously evaluating and adjusting strategies to mitigate potential losses.
* **Risk Management Features:** XTrend Speed includes features such as stop-loss orders and risk management tools that help traders limit their losses and protect their investments during volatile periods.
* **Educational Resources:** The platform provides extensive educational resources, including tutorials and articles, to help traders understand market dynamics and develop effective trading strategies.
* **Community Engagement:** XTrend Speed’s community forums and discussion groups allow traders to share insights, strategies, and experiences. Engaging with a community of traders can provide valuable perspectives and support.

As traders and other experts in this area of finance continue to track the intersection of policy, technology, and global economics. New titans will be those armed with the best information and tools to manage the volatility of the dollar and its power on the world stage.

*
*
*
*
*
If the SEC were a sports team measured by its “win” rate, it would be a runaway champ.

But that win-loss record suffered a mild hit — and its first ever loss in an “ICO” case — one that refers to the controversial method of crowd fundraising and that borrows from the public company “IPO” or initial public offering.

A federal judge denied the SEC a preliminary injunction against Blockvest after he granted a temporary restraining order on the same issue. We chat with Amit Singh, attorney and shareholder in Stradling’s corporate and securities practice group about the SEC’s fresh loss.

His take? They’ll be out for blood, next.

**For those not in the know, share the legal background leading up to this case.**

In October of this year, the Securities Exchange Commission filed a complaint against Blockvest LLC and its founder, Reginald Buddy Ringgold III. According to the complaint, Blockvest falsely claimed its planned December initial coin offering was “registered” and “approved” by the SEC and created a fake regulatory agency, the Blockchain Exchange Commission, which included a phony logo that was nearly identical to that of the SEC. The SEC also alleged Blockvest conducted pre-sales of its digital token, BLV, ahead of the ICO and raised more than $2.5 million.

The SEC’s complaint alleged violations of the anti-fraud provisions of the Securities Exchange and the Securities Act and violations of the Securities Act’s prohibitions against the offer and sale of unregistered securities in the absence of an exemption from the registration requirements.

U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel issued a temporary restraining order “freezing assets, prohibiting the destruction of documents, granting expedited discovery, requiring accounting and order to show cause why a preliminary injunction should not be granted” on October 5, 2018.

On Tuesday, November 27, in the SEC’s first loss in stopping an ICO, judge Gonzalo Curiel stated that the SEC had not shown at this stage of the case that the BLV tokens were securities under the Howey Test, a decades-old test established by the U.S. Supreme Court for determining whether certain transactions are investment contracts and thus securities. If the tokens weren’t securities, all the SEC’s other allegations automatically fail Under the Howey Test, a transaction is an investment contract (or security) if:

– It is an investment of money;

– There is an expectation of profits from the investment;

– The investment of money is in a common enterprise; and

– Any profit comes from the efforts of a promoter or third party

Later cases have expanded the term “money” in the Howey Test to include investment assets other than money.

The judge said that the SEC failed to show investors had an expectation of profits. “While defendants claim that they had an expectation in Blockvest’s future business, no evidence is provided to support the test investors’ expectation of profits,” the judge wrote. Blockvest argued that the pre-ICO money came from 32 “test investors” and said the BLV tokens were only designed for testing its platform. It presented statements from several investors who said they either did not buy BLV tokens or rely on any representations that the SEC has alleged are false. The SEC responded by noting that various individuals wrote “Blockvest” or “coins” on their checks and were provided with a Blockvest ICO white paper describing the project and the terms of the ICO. Judge Curiel said that evidence, by itself, wasn’t enough: “Merely writing ‘Blockvest or coins’ on their checks is not sufficient to demonstrate what promotional materials or economic inducements these purchasers were presented with prior to their investments. Accordingly, plaintiff has not demonstrated that ‘securities’ were sold to [these] individuals.”

**Won’t the case proceed? Why is the denial of an injunction important here?**

This does not mean that the SEC cannot pursue an action against the defendants Rather it just means that the SEC didn’t meet the high burden required to receive a preliminary injunction of proving “(1) a prima facie case of previous violations of federal securities laws, and (2) a reasonable likelihood that the wrong will be repeated.”

The court determined that, at this stage, without full discovery and disputed issues of material facts, the Court could not decide whether the BLV token were securities. Since the SEC didn’t meet its burden of proving the tokens were securities in the first place, it couldn’t have shown that there was a previous violation of the federal securities laws So, the first prong was not met Further, the defendants agreed to stop the ICO and provide 30 days’ prior notice to the SEC if they intend to move forward with the ICO So, the court determined that there was not a reasonable likelihood that the wrong will be repeated As a result, the SEC’s motion for a preliminary injunction was denied.

Nonetheless, this is an important case as it is the first time the SEC went after an ICO issuer and the issuer pushed back and won (if only temporarily) It reminds us that, though most people think of the SEC as judge and jury in securities actions, that isn’t the case Ultimately, an issuer that pushes back may have a chance if it has the wherewithal to fight and if it has good arguments However, this does not mean that the SEC is done with them and we may very well see this case continue.

**Won’t media coverage of this case ultimately impair Blockvest’s ability to raise funds — its ultimate goal?**

That may very well be the case.

Unfortunately, unsophisticated investors could ultimately merely remember the Blockvest name and decide that it must be a good investment since they’ve heard of it (ala PT Barnum – “I don’t care what the newspapers say about me as long as they spell my name right.”). But I may be too cynical (hopefully I am). In any case, I would be surprised if Blockvest attempts to pursue an ICO without either registering the tokens or utilizing an exemption from the registration requirements. They clearly have a target on their back, so the SEC would love another crack at them I’m sure.

Plus, even though a preliminary injunction was denied here, the SEC still got what it wanted as Blockvest agreed not to pursue the ICO without giving the SEC 30 days’ prior notice of its intent to do so. So, the investing public was ultimately protected.

**What is the SEC’s current stance on what constitutes a security based on this case?**

The SEC will still point to the Howey Test Further, as stated in recent speeches by Hinman and others, the SEC seems to be focused not only on the utility of any tokens (i.e., they can be used on the platform for which they were created), but also on decentralization (that the efforts of the promoters are no longer required to maintain the value/utility of the tokens/platform).

However, the court in this case looked at the investment of money prong differently than has historically been the case Normally, the investment of money prong is assumed with little analysis as any consideration is considered “money” for purposes of the test But this case looked at the investment not from the purchaser’s subjective intent when committing funds, but instead based the analysis on what was offered to prospective purchasers and what information they relied on So, issuers are well advised to be very careful in how they advertise an offering.

Further, the expectation of profits prong wasn’t met because, according to Blockvest, these were just test investors So, it wasn’t clear these folks invested for a profit The tokens were never even used or sold outside the platform.

**Where does the Ninth Circuit sit in regards to what is a security?**

The Ninth Circuit follows the Howey Test.

However, the common enterprise element has received extensive and varied analysis in the federal circuit courts For example, while all circuits accept “horizontal” commonality as satisfying the common enterprise prong of the Howey Test, a minority of circuits (including the ninth) also accept “vertical” commonality in this analysis.

Horizontal commonality involves the pooling of assets, profits and risks in a unitary enterprise, while vertical commonality requires that profits of investors be “interwoven with and dependent upon the efforts and success of those seeking the investment or of third parties” (narrow verticality), or “that the well-being of all investors be dependent upon the promoter’s expertise” (broad commonality). SEC v. SG Ltd., 265 F.3d 42, 49 (1st Cir. 2001).

The Ninth Circuit is the only one to accept the narrow vertical approach (though it also accepts horizontal commonality), which finds a common enterprise if there is a correlation between the fortunes of an investor and a promoter.” Sec. & Exch. Comm’n v. Eurobond Exchange, Ltd., 13 F.3d 1334, 1339 (9th Cir., 1994). Under this approach a common enterprise is a venture “in which the ‘fortunes of the investor are interwoven with and dependent upon the efforts and success of those seeking the investment….'” Investors’ funds need not be pooled; rather the fortunes of the investors must be linked with those of the promoters, which suffices to establish vertical commonality. So, a common enterprise exists if a direct correlation has been established between success or failure of the promoter’s efforts and success or failure of the investment.

**Which Federal Circuits might offer an equal or even bigger split with the SEC?**

I wouldn’t really say that any courts split with the SEC as the SEC’s decisions take precedent over any decisions of those courts. However, there is a split among the circuits as described above with respect to what type of commonality is sufficient to find a common enterprise.

**What impact could the outcome of this case have on ICOs at large?**

This case may embolden companies who have already conducted ICOs to push back on any SEC actions that they might not otherwise fight as it shows that the SEC will always have to meet the burden of proving all factors of the Howey Test are met before the SEC has jurisdiction over the offering in the first place.

**Has the Supreme Court addressed anything crypto, crypto related, or analogous?**

The only case I know of where the Supreme court has addressed crypto currencies is Wisconsin Central Ltd. v. United States.

That was a case about whether stock counts as “money remuneration” The dissent in that case talked about how our concept of money has changed over time and said that perhaps “one day employees will be paid in bitcoin or some other type of cryptocurrency.” This goes against the IRS’s position that cryptocurrencies are property and should be taxed as such But, it was just a passing comment in the dissent. So, it has no precedential value. But, it may embolden someone to fight the IRS’s position.

古巴央行已授予发放加密货币相关服务许可证的权利。这项新规定将于今年5月16日生效。《官方公报》第43号详细说明了虚拟资产服务提供商的新规定。

根据新规定，

在与多个合作伙伴和产品推出几个月后，Gather Network上周宣布将孵化PaidToGo作为第一个将在其区块链上构建的几个客户之一。PaidToGo应用程序已经上线，可以下载使用。

两周前，当Terra的UST和Luna货币在几分钟内崩溃时，加密空间震惊了。由于持续的红色市场，公众对此的看法已经偏向消极，最受欢迎的加密货币的暴跌进一步增加了担忧的原因。在接下来的

游艇一直是世界各地奢华和财富的象征，提到它们往往会让人联想到刻板印象。游艇最初是用来猎杀海盗的快速军舰，从“卑微”的开端已经走了很长一段路。然而

2024年4月24日，英国伦敦，Chainwire

今天是一个重要的日子，因为Hipposol，一种Solana迷因币，自豪地宣布$hippos的预售轮次面向早期参与者开放。$Hippos代币预售从强大而富有玩味的河马中汲取灵感。

美国人正在应对当前的经济环境，在信用卡逾期率上暴增了 1,430 亿美元，超出了疫情前水平。财务压力导致这些率显著上升，表明消费者普遍面临着满足其需求的困境。

开放的元宇宙是什么样子的？ 领先的Web3元宇宙平台Upland和The Sandbox正在涉足可互操作虚拟世界的未来。 在这种首创性的合作中，这两个创新的游戏平台正在建立新的虚拟世界桥梁。请注意，Metaverse应翻译为元宇宙，leading应翻译为龙头。