一次，加密货币公司在美国舒适地运营

在那个古朴的时代，他们经常会举办称为“初始硬币产品”的资金活动，然后使用那些筹集的资金

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，加密货币公司曾经在美国舒适地运营，他们经常会举办称为“初始硬币产品”的资金活动，然后使用这些资金来尝试在真实和区块链世​​界中做事。现在，他们在地理围式美国时，很大程度上通过外国实体进行了“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.

这种变化的效果是戏剧性的：几乎所有主要的加密货币发行人都在美国开始，现在包括一些离岸基础部门。这些实体带来了重大的国内挑战。它们很昂贵，难以操作，并且对治理和法规留下了许多关键问题，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.

在行业中，许多人都渴望“重新往返”，但直到今年，一直没有这样做的途径。但是，现在可能会改变。新的加密策略即将到来，特朗普家族的成员已经提出了消除对加密货币的资本利得税的想法，许多美国联邦机构已对加密货币公司的执法行动撤销。

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.

四年来，政府首次向加密货币行业发出了信号。很快可能会有一条返回美国的途径

Crypto firms tried to comply in the U.S.

加密公司试图遵守美国

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.”

我们离岸痕迹可以追溯到2017年的故事。加密货币还很年轻，证券交易委员会对这些新产品的监管采取了动力。当委员会发布一份名为“ DAO报告”的文件时，一切都发生了变化。

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首次争辩说，自2009年比特币BTCUSD白皮书以来开发的自制加密货币令牌实际上是称为证券的仪器。这项禁令不是总共 - 大约与DAO报告发布的同时，SEC公司财务总监William Hinman公开表达了他的观点，认为比特币BTCUSD和Ether Ethusd不是证券。

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.

为了阐明这种区别，委员会在2019年发布了一个数字资产的框架，该框架确定了评估令牌安全状况的相关因素，并指出“他们的存在越强，满足Howey测试的可能性就越小。”依靠这一指南，许多人推测，代币的功能“消费”用途将使项目与证券问题相关。

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.

同时，复杂的税收影响是结晶的。税务顾问达成了共识，与传统的融资工具（如简单的未来公平协议（Safe）或首选权益协议）不同，代币销售是美国对未来代币（SAFTS）的简单协议（SAFTS）（SAFTS）的完全应纳税事件（SAFTS）（与发行未来的代币的合同） - 面对更好的税收治疗，与可纳税的事件完全不符合税务事件，直到释放了代币。这意味着美国公司的代币出售将产生巨大的税收责任。

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.

项目真诚地遵守这些准则。律师提取了原则，并建议客户遵循他们。一点点子弹并缴纳税款，而不是为了为美国项目创造外国存在。

How SEC v. LBRY muddied waters

Secv。Lbry泥泞的水

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.

所有这些都持续了几年。 SEC带来了一些重大的执法行动，例如对Ripple和Telegram的行动，并关闭了其他项目，例如Diem。但是许多创始人仍然认为，如果他们坚持脚本，他们可以在美国合法运作。

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.

然后，事件密谋使这种不安的平衡失去平衡。 SEC主席Gary Gensler于2021年进入现场，Sam Bankman在2022年炸毁了FTX，Paul Barbadoro法官的意见却来自新罕布什尔州Sec诉Secv。Lbry的新罕布什尔州地区的美国地方法院。

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案件是一个小案件，影响了一个小的加密项目，但是从该项目中实现的法律适用对加密货币法的实践产生了巨大影响，并且扩展了对创始人开放的途径。

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.”

巴巴多罗法官承认，令牌可能有消费用途，但认为“判例法中没有任何东西表明，具有消费性和投机用途的代币不能作为投资合同出售。”

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.”

他接着说，他不能“拒绝SEC对LBRY提供的（令牌）作为安全性的论点，这仅仅是因为某些[令牌]购买是用消费意图进行的。”由于“经济现实”，巴巴多罗认为，是否有些人“可能是出于消费目的获得的LBC”并不重要。

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.

这是毁灭性的。从本质上讲，在LBRY中的持有是，在SEC框架中提出的因素在很大程度上并不重要。在LBRY中，巴巴多罗法官发现，消费用途可能存在，但购买者对利润的期望占主导地位。

And this, it turned out,

结果，事实证明