一次，加密貨幣公司在美國舒適地運營

在那個古樸的時代，他們經常會舉辦稱為“初始硬幣產品”的資金活動，然後使用那些籌集的資金

Once, long ago, cryptocurrency companies used to operate comfortably in the U.S. They would often conduct funding events called “initial coin offerings,” and then use those raised funds to try to do things in the real and blockchain world. Now, they largely do this “offshore” through foreign entities while geofencing the United States.

很久以前，加密貨幣公司曾經在美國舒適地運營，他們經常會舉辦稱為“初始硬幣產品”的資金活動，然後使用這些資金來嘗試在真實和區塊鏈世​​界中做事。現在，他們在地理圍式美國時，很大程度上通過外國實體進行了“海上”。

The effect of this change has been dramatic: Practically all major cryptocurrency issuers started in the U.S. now include some off-shore foundation arm. These entities create significant domestic challenges. They are expensive, difficult to operate, and leave many crucial questions about governance and regulation only half answered.

這種變化的效果是戲劇性的：幾乎所有主要的加密貨幣發行人都在美國開始，現在包括一些離岸基礎部門。這些實體帶來了重大的國內挑戰。它們很昂貴，難以操作，並且對治理和法規留下了許多關鍵問題，只有一半的回答。

Many in the industry yearn to “re-shore,” but until this year, there has been no path to do so. Now, though, that could change. New crypto-rulemaking is on the horizon, members of the Trump family have floated the idea of eliminating capital gains tax on cryptocurrency, and many U.S. federal agencies have dropped enforcement actions against crypto firms.

在行業中，許多人都渴望“重新往返”，但直到今年，一直沒有這樣做的途徑。但是，現在可能會改變。新的加密策略即將到來，特朗普家族的成員已經提出了消除對加密貨幣的資本利得稅的想法，許多美國聯邦機構已對加密貨幣公司的執法行動撤銷。

For the first time in four years, the government has signaled to the cryptocurrency industry that it is open to deal. There may soon be a path to return to the U.S.

四年來，政府首次向加密貨幣行業發出了信號。很快可能會有一條返回美國的途徑

Crypto firms tried to comply in the U.S.

加密公司試圖遵守美國

The story of U.S. offshoring traces back to 2017. Crypto was still young, and the Securities and Exchange Commission had taken a hands-off approach to the regulation of these new products. That all changed when the commission released a document called “The DAO Report.”

我們離岸痕跡可以追溯到2017年的故事。加密貨幣還很年輕，證券交易委員會對這些新產品的監管採取了動力。當委員會發布一份名為“ DAO報告”的文件時，一切都發生了變化。

For the first time, the SEC argued that the homebrew cryptocurrency tokens that had developed since the 2009 Bitcoin BTCUSD white paper were actually regulated instruments called securities. This prohibition was not total — around the same time as The DAO Report’s launch, SEC Director of Corporate Finance William Hinman publicly expressed his views that Bitcoin BTCUSD and Ether ETHUSD were not securities.

SEC首次爭辯說，自2009年比特幣BTCUSD白皮書以來開發的自製加密貨幣令牌實際上是稱為證券的儀器。這項禁令不是總共 - 大約與DAO報告發布的同時，SEC公司財務總監William Hinman公開表達了他的觀點，認為比特幣BTCUSD和Ether Ethusd不是證券。

To clarify this distinction, the commission released a framework for digital assets in 2019, which identified relevant factors to evaluate a token’s security status and noted that “the stronger their presence, the less likely the Howey test is met.” Relying on this guidance, many speculated that functional “consumptive” uses of tokens would insulate projects from securities concerns.

為了闡明這種區別，委員會在2019年發布了一個數字資產的框架，該框架確定了評估令牌安全狀況的相關因素，並指出“他們的存在越強，滿足Howey測試的可能性就越小。”依靠這一指南，許多人推測，代幣的功能“消費”用途將使項目與證券問題相關。

In parallel, complicated tax implications were crystallizing. Tax advisers reached a consensus that, unlike traditional financing instruments like simple agreements for future equity (SAFEs) or preferred equity, token sales were fully taxable events in the U.S. Simple agreements for future tokens (SAFTs) — contracts to issue future tokens — faced little better tax treatment, with the taxable event merely deferred until the tokens were released. This meant that a token sale by a U.S. company would generate a massive tax liability.

同時，複雜的稅收影響是結晶的。稅務顧問達成了共識，與傳統的融資工具（如簡單的未來公平協議（Safe）或首選權益協議）不同，代幣銷售是美國對未來代幣（SAFTS）的簡單協議（SAFTS）（SAFTS）的完全應納稅事件（SAFTS）（與發行未來的代幣的合同） - 面對更好的稅收治療，與可納稅的事件完全不符合稅務事件，直到釋放了代幣。這意味著美國公司的代幣出售將產生巨大的稅收責任。

Projects tried in good faith to adhere to these guidelines. Lawyers extracted principles and advised clients to follow them. Some bit the bullet and paid the tax rather than contriving to create a foreign presence for a U.S. project.

項目真誠地遵守這些準則。律師提取了原則，並建議客戶遵循他們。一點點子彈並繳納稅款，而不是為了為美國項目創造外國存在。

How SEC v. LBRY muddied waters

Secv。 Lbry泥濘的水

All this chugged along for a few years. The SEC brought some major enforcement actions, like its moves against Ripple and Telegram, and shut down other projects, like Diem. But many founders still believed they could operate legally in the U.S. if they stuck to the script.

所有這些都持續了幾年。 SEC帶來了一些重大的執法行動，例如對Ripple和Telegram的行動，並關閉了其他項目，例如Diem。但是許多創始人仍然認為，如果他們堅持腳本，他們可以在美國合法運作。

Then, events conspired to knock this uneasy equilibrium out of balance. SEC Chair Gary Gensler entered the scene in 2021, Sam Bankman-Fried blew up FTX in 2022, and an unheralded opinion from Judge Paul Barbadoro came out of the sleepy U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire in a case called SEC v. LBRY.

然後，事件密謀使這種不安的平衡失去平衡。 SEC主席Gary Gensler於2021年進入現場，Sam Bankman在2022年炸毀了FTX，Paul Barbadoro法官的意見卻來自新罕布什爾州Sec訴Secv。 Lbry的新罕布什爾州地區的美國地方法院。

The LBRY case is a small one, affecting what is, by all accounts, a minor crypto project, but the application of law that came out of it had a dramatic effect on the practice of cryptocurrency law and, by extension, the avenues open to founders.

LBRY案件是一個小案件，影響了一個小的加密項目，但是從該項目中實現的法律適用對加密貨幣法的實踐產生了巨大影響，並且擴展了對創始人開放的途徑。

Judge Barbadoro conceded that the token may have consumptive uses but held that “nothing in the case law suggests that a token with both consumptive and speculative uses cannot be sold as an investment contract.”

巴巴多羅法官承認，令牌可能有消費用途，但認為“判例法中沒有任何東西表明，具有消費性和投機用途的代幣不能作為投資合同出售。”

He went on to say that he could not “reject the SEC's contention that LBRY offered [the token] as a security simply because some [token] purchases were made with consumptive intent.” Because of the “economic realities,” Barbadoro held that it did not matter if some “may have acquired LBC in part for consumptive purposes.”

他接著說，他不能“拒絕SEC對LBRY提供的（令牌）作為安全性的論點，這僅僅是因為某些[令牌]購買是用消費意圖進行的。”由於“經濟現實”，巴巴多羅認為，是否有些人“可能是出於消費目的獲得的LBC”並不重要。

This was devastating. The holding in LBRY is, essentially, that the factors proposed in the SEC framework largely do not matter in actual securities disputes. In LBRY, Judge Barbadoro found that the consumptive uses may be present, but the purchasers’ expectation of profit predominated.

這是毀滅性的。從本質上講，在LBRY中的持有是，在SEC框架中提出的因素在很大程度上並不重要。在LBRY中，巴巴多羅法官發現，消費用途可能存在，但購買者對利潤的期望占主導地位。

And this, it turned out,

結果，事實證明