SEC最近的Memecoin指導遠不止於此

2月27日，美國證券交易委員會（SEC）公司融資部的工作人員發布了指南，解釋了Memecoins，SEC將其描述為數字資產

The staff of the SEC’s Division of Corporate Finance on Feb. 27 issued some interesting guidance on memecoins. The guidance, which is part of a broader administrative role that the SEC plays in policing the financial markets, explains that memecoins—which the SEC described as digital assets "inspired by internet memes, characters, current events, or trends for which the promoter seeks to attract an enthusiastic online community"—are generally not sold as securities.

2月27日，美國證券交易委員會（SEC）公司融資部的工作人員發布了一些有關Memecoins的有趣指南。該指南是SEC在對金融市場進行監管的更廣泛行政角色的一部分，該指南解釋說，Memecoins被描述為數字資產的SEC“受互聯網模因，角色，時事或趨勢的啟發，發起人試圖吸引熱情的在線社區”，而不是以證券的出售。

This is consistent with the SEC’s shift away from efforts, largely pursued by former Chair Gary Gensler, to claim regulatory power over virtually the entire digital-asset industry. And it could have implications for the industry that go far beyond memecoins.

這與美國證券交易委員會（SEC）擺脫了前主席加里·蓋斯勒（Gary Gensler）在很大程度上追求的努力的轉變是一致的。它可能對遠遠超出成人的行業有影響。

The SEC’s attempts to regulate digital assets during the Biden Administration have largely hinged on the Supreme Court’s so-called “Howey test” for determining whether a transaction involves an “investment contract,” a term that is defined in Section 2(1) of the Securities Act and which is subject to the agency’s administrative jurisdiction.

SEC在拜登政府期間監管數字資產的嘗試很大程度上取決於最高法院所謂的“ Howey測試”，以確定交易是否涉及“投資合同”，這是《證券法案》第2（1）節中定義的術語，該術語及其遵守該機構的行政管轄權。

Howey requires an investment of money in a common enterprise, with an expectation of profits from the efforts of others.

Howey需要在共同企業中投資貨幣，並期望他人的努力獲得利潤。

In the SEC’s enforcement actions against digital-asset exchanges, the defendants have argued that secondary-market resales of digital assets lack the necessary “investment of money in a common enterprise” because investors’ funds are not “pooled” by developers into a common fund and then used to further a business in which the investors share the profits. In the SEC’s case against Kraken, for example, the agency told a federal court that “pooling of resale proceeds” by a developer is not “required under Howey.”

在SEC針對數字資產交易所的執法行動中，被告認為，數字資產的二級市場轉售缺乏必要的“在共同企業中投資的貨幣投資”，因為開發人員不會將投資者的資金“合併”到共同基金中，然後用來進一步的投資者共享利潤的企業。例如，在SEC針對Kraken的案件中，該機構告訴聯邦法院，開發商“在Howey下”並不需要開發商的“集合收益”。

But the SEC’s new guidance confirms the opposite. It says that purchasers of memecoins make no investment in a common enterprise because their funds “are not pooled together to be deployed by promoters or other third parties for developing the coin or a related enterprise.” The guidance also explains that memecoin purchasers do not expect profits derived from the efforts of others—another Howey requirement. Rather, the value of memecoins comes from "speculative trading and the collective sentiment of the market, like a collectible."

但是SEC的新指南証實了相反的指導。它說，Memecoins的購買者沒有對共同企業進行投資，因為他們的資金“沒有合併在一起，由發起人或其他第三方部署，以開發硬幣或相關企業。”該指南還解釋說，Memecoin購買者並不希望從他人的努力中獲得利潤，這是另一個Howey要求。相反，Memecoins的價值來自“投機性交易和市場的集體情感，就像收藏品一樣”。

The SEC’s memecoin guidance is most obviously consequential for the sale and promotion of memecoins, which are the subject of recent private class-actions brought by individual plaintiffs. But it has broader implications for all secondary-market transactions in digital assets, including on exchanges. In secondary-market transactions on exchanges, purchasers’ funds likewise “are not pooled together to be deployed by promoters or other third parties for developing the coin or a related enterprise.” Thus, the SEC now seems to recognize that, under a proper application of the Howey test, those transactions are beyond the agency’s reach, as defendants have consistently argued in the SEC’s prior enforcement cases.

SEC的Memecoin指南對於銷售和推廣Memecoins是最明顯的，這是個人原告最近提出的私人集體行動的主題。但是，這對數字資產（包括交易所）的所有次級市場交易具有更大的影響。在交易所的二級市場交易中，購買者的資金同樣“沒有合併在一起，以開發硬幣或相關企業的發起人或其他第三方部署。”因此，SEC現在似乎認識到，在適當地應用Howey測試的情況下，這些交易超出了該機構的影響力，因為被告在SEC之前的執行案件中一直在爭論。

This doctrinal reversal may be part of the impetus behind the SEC’s recent decisions to voluntarily dismiss several cases involving secondary-market transactions, and to stay further proceedings in others.

這種教義逆轉可能是SEC最近決定自願駁回幾起涉及次要市場交易的案件的決定背後的動力的一部分，並在其他案件中繼續進一步訴訟。

To be sure, the SEC’s new guidance includes statements that it "represents the views of [agency] staff," not necessarily the SEC itself, and that the statement "has no legal force or effect." The SEC also attempted to restrict the guidance to "the offer and sale of meme coins" in accordance with the Bank Secrecy Act and relevant Division of Enforcement programs, and it says the guidance should be read in light of the administrative role played by the Division of Corporate Finance.

可以肯定的是，美國證券交易委員會的新指南包括“代表[代理]工作人員的觀點，不一定是SEC本身，並且該聲明“沒有法律武力或效力”。美國證券交易委員會還試圖根據《銀行保密法》和執法計劃的相關部門將指導限制為“偽造硬幣的要約和銷售”，並說應根據公司財務部門扮演的行政角色來閱讀該指南。

The agency could try to use those boilerplate recitals to wriggle out of the guidance at some point in the future. But constitutional principles of due process and fair notice may constrain the agency’s ability to impose retroactive liability based on any future flip-flop.

該機構可以嘗試使用這些樣板朗誦來在將來的某個時候擺脫指導。但是，正當程序和公告的憲法原則可能會限制該機構根據未來的觸發器施加追溯責任的能力。

Moreover, although the SEC’s guidance is not binding on courts, the SEC’s change in position on pooling will make it difficult for private plaintiffs to credibly argue that most digital assets are sold as securities.

此外，儘管美國證券交易委員會的指導沒有對法院的約束力，但SEC在合併的位置的變化將使私人原告很難可靠地認為大多數數字資產都是證券出售的。

The SEC’s guidance on memecoins is consistent with the agency’s other recent steps to pull back from the regulation-by-enforcement approach that plagued the industry under former Chair Gary Gensler. And the guidance offers welcome clarity from the agency in an area where the agency’s prior approach had significantly muddied the waters. It is, in short, a significant step in the right direction for crypto law and policy in the United States.

SEC關於Memecoins的指南與該機構最近的其他步驟一致，該步驟是從前主席Gary Gensler領導下困擾該行業的法規方法。該指南為該機構在該機構先前的方法大大弄亂水域的地區提供了歡迎的明確性。簡而言之，這是美國加密法和政策正確方向邁出的重要一步。