Ripple Labs’ chief legal officer, Stuart
Alderoty, has criticized the United States Securities and Exchange Commission
(SEC) for repeatedly using the term “crypto asset security.” He argues that the
term has no legal foundation. He further accused the SEC of attempting to
mislead judges by using the phrase.
The criticism follows a recent SEC filing
on August 30. In the filing, the SEC warned that it might challenge any
proposal by the now-defunct crypto exchange FTX to use stablecoins to repay
creditors. The SEC noted that FTX’s portfolio includes “crypto asset
securities.” Alderoty sees this as part of an effort by the SEC to insert
legally unsupported terminology into legal arguments.
A similar concern has been raised in other
legal contexts. In a case involving the crypto exchange Kraken, the Federal
Court for the Northern District of California has also questioned the SEC’s use
of the term “crypto asset security.” The court described the concept as
“unclear at best and confusing at worst.”
The term ‘crypto asset security’ is nowhere to be found in any statute—it’s a fabricated term with no legal basis. The SEC needs to stop trying to deceive judges by using it. pic.twitter.com/CyNbUbeoYM
— Stuart Alderoty (@s_alderoty) September 2, 2024
Alderoty also criticized the SEC’s approach
in other areas. In an August 29 X post, he referenced the regulator’s Wells
notice to the NFT marketplace OpenSea. The notice claimed that some of the
tokens being sold on the platform might be unregistered securities.
Alderoty
compared the situation to a case from over 40 years ago, where the SEC had
ruled that an art gallery did not need to register with the SEC, even if buyers
viewed the art as an investment.
SEC Art Ruling Revisited
In a letter shared by Alderoty, the Art
Appraisers of America, representing artist William Nelson, sought clarification
from the SEC on whether selling lithographs and print drawings could be
considered selling unregistered securities.
The gallery was concerned because
collectors might purchase the art with investment intentions and later sell it
at a higher value. The SEC, at the time, chose not to take enforcement action,
stating that registration was not required.
However, the letter from the SEC did note
that the decision could change if different facts or conditions emerged. It
emphasized that the ruling was specific to the situation at hand and did not
constitute a broader legal conclusion.
Alderoty’s comments…
