SEC最近的Memecoin指导远不止于此

2月27日，美国证券交易委员会（SEC）公司融资部的工作人员发布了指南，解释了Memecoins，SEC将其描述为数字资产

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，美国证券交易委员会（SEC）公司融资部的工作人员发布了一些有关Memecoins的有趣指南。该指南是SEC在对金融市场进行监管的更广泛行政角色的一部分，该指南解释说，Memecoins被描述为数字资产的SEC“受互联网模因，角色，时事或趋势的启发，发起人试图吸引热情的在线社区”，而不是以证券的出售。

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.

这与美国证券交易委员会（SEC）摆脱了前主席加里·盖斯勒（Gary Gensler）在很大程度上追求的努力的转变是一致的。它可能对远远超出成人的行业有影响。

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在拜登政府期间监管数字资产的尝试很大程度上取决于最高法院所谓的“ Howey测试”，以确定交易是否涉及“投资合同”，这是《证券法案》第2（1）节中定义的术语，该术语及其遵守该机构的行政管辖权。

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

Howey需要在共同企业中投资货币，并期望他人的努力获得利润。

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针对数字资产交易所的执法行动中，被告认为，数字资产的二级市场转售缺乏必要的“在共同企业中投资的货币投资”，因为开发人员不会将投资者的资金“合并”到共同基金中，然后用来进一步的投资者共享利润的企业。例如，在SEC针对Kraken的案件中，该机构告诉联邦法院，开发商“在Howey下”并不需要开发商的“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的新指南证实了相反的指导。它说，Memecoins的购买者没有对共同企业进行投资，因为他们的资金“没有合并在一起，由发起人或其他第三方部署，以开发硬币或相关企业。”该指南还解释说，Memecoin购买者并不希望从他人的努力中获得利润，这是另一个Howey要求。相反，Memecoins的价值来自“投机性交易和市场的集体情感，就像收藏品一样”。

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指南对于销售和推广Memecoins是最明显的，这是个人原告最近提出的私人集体行动的主题。但是，这对数字资产（包括交易所）的所有次级市场交易具有更大的影响。在交易所的二级市场交易中，购买者的资金同样“没有合并在一起，以开发硬币或相关企业的发起人或其他第三方部署。”因此，SEC现在似乎认识到，在适当地应用Howey测试的情况下，这些交易超出了该机构的影响力，因为被告在SEC之前的执行案件中一直在争论。

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.

这种教义逆转可能是SEC最近决定自愿驳回几起涉及次要市场交易的案件的决定背后的动力的一部分，并在其他案件中继续进一步诉讼。

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，美国证券交易委员会的新指南包括“代表[代理]工作人员的观点，不一定是SEC本身，并且该声明“没有法律武力或效力”。美国证券交易委员会还试图根据《银行保密法》和执法计划的相关部门将指导限制为“伪造硬币的要约和销售”，并说应根据公司财务部门扮演的行政角色来阅读该指南。

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.

该机构可以尝试使用这些样板朗诵来在将来的某个时候摆脱指导。但是，正当程序和公告的宪法原则可能会限制该机构根据未来的触发器施加追溯责任的能力。

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，尽管美国证券交易委员会的指导没有对法院的约束力，但SEC在合并的位置的变化将使私人原告很难可靠地认为大多数数字资产都是证券出售的。

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关于Memecoins的指南与该机构最近的其他步骤一致，该步骤是从前主席Gary Gensler领导下困扰该行业的法规方法。该指南为该机构在该机构先前的方法大大弄乱水域的地区提供了欢迎的明确性。简而言之，这是美国加密法和政策正确方向迈出的重要一步。