为了更好的阅读体验，请去：
https://www.hashbee.com/article/47123200
本文翻译自资深加密货币行业律师Jake Chervinsky 11.16 推文
翻译：克总不发糖 大Q
11月16日，美国证监会发布了“普通话”版的ICO发行与监管声明，然而给所有人的感受依然非常。。。高深。。。
(投票来自 blockchain.com主席/CLO Marco Santori)
我们还是看看专业人士的解读吧。
全篇都是“普通话” 要点如下：
这才是第一阶段
25万美元罚金可能是对ICO的统一定价
他们战略性地起诉了加密产业每一个子行业
SEC“用执法来指引”
规则模糊有利于SEC
违反证券法 不等于"你完了", SEC不会灭了ICO
第二阶段很会很漫长而痛苦，而证券法这一堆也只是开始
0. 今天标志着SEC（美国证监会）加密货币执法策略的我称之为 “第一阶段”的结束。我的主要考虑如下：
对AirFox & Paragon的处罚
关于数字资产证券发行及交易的声明
对“第二阶段”应当有什么期待
0/ Today marks the conclusion of what I'll call "phase one" of the SEC's crypto enforcement strategy. My thoughts on:
- the enforcement actions against AirFox & Paragon
- the statement on digital asset securities issuance & trading
- what to expect in "phase two"
1. 在我深入解析之前，我还是要不厌其烦的提醒你们：
*SEC并不制定法律。*国会制定法律 & 法庭会对法律作出解释。SEC律师只能决定他们自己的执法策略。他们的行为并不具有法律约束性：他们可以改变想法也可能输掉官司。
1/ Before I dive in, a reminder I can't repeat often enough:
*The SEC does not make the law.* Congress makes the law & courts interpret it. SEC lawyers only decide their own enforcement strategy. Nothing they say is binding: they can change their minds & they can lose in court.
2. 我们先来谈谈SEC的执法行为。
按照SEC的说法，在SEC发布其2017 DAO报告(SEC首次界定代币为证券的报告) 之后，AirFox和Paragon两家公司通过ICO募集了数百万美元。在上周SEC对EtherDelta进行处罚之后，我们就知道这会发生。
后台回复SECDAO 获得这份报告
2/ Let's start with the enforcement actions.
According to the SEC, both AirFox and Paragon raised millions of dollars through ICOs conducted after the SEC issued its 2017 DAO Report. We pretty much saw this coming after last week's EtherDelta order:
3. SEC称两家公司依据豪威测试（Howey Test）发行了证券。因为其ICO代币并未注册，所以这两家公司违反了证券法第5节。说实话，这样的处罚结果对我们这些币圈律师来说并不奇怪。
想要了解更多详情，请访问：
https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2018-264
3/ The SEC said both companies issued securities under the Howey test. Since the ICO tokens weren't registered, the companies violated Securities Act § 5. Honestly, this is no surprise to any of us crypto lawyers.
For more details, read the orders here:
https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2018-264
4. 所以，对发行未经注册的证券的处罚是什么？
25万美元的罚款，没了，真的。
AirFox & Paragon两家公司各自ICO募集了1500万和1200万美元。两家公司都没事了，只需要支付25万美元的罚款以及合规要求（注册/关闭）。
（违反证券法 不等于 你完了）
4/ So, what's the punishment for issuing an unregistered security?
$250k. End of story. Yes, really.
AirFox & Paragon raised $15 million and $12 million respectively. Both are free & clear with a $250k penalty + compliance (registration & disclosures).
https://twitter.com/jchervinsky/status/1060720449569677312
5. 尽管两家公司情况非常不同，但是处罚是一样的。
AirFox传输移动通话时间和数据；Paragon为*非法*大麻行业提供服务。一家公司似乎要比另一家公司更冒险。
然而，他们都只需要支付25万美元的罚款。也许每个这样的项目的罚金都是统一定价的？
5/ Note both companies got the same penalty despite being very different.
AirFox transfers mobile airtime & data; Paragon services the *illegal* cannabis industry. One seems more risky than the other.
Yet, both of them paid $250k. Maybe that will be the price for everyone?
6. 然后SEC发表了一篇新的声明。
这是，自Bill Hinman（SEC财务部门主管）发表演讲称比特币和以太坊并不是证券以来SEC的第一篇声明。(因为它们是“足够去中心化的”)
它涵盖了近期SEC针对行业参与者的所有执法行为：ICO，交易所，经纪人以及资金。
6/ Then came a new SEC statement.
This is the first since Bill Hinman's speech saying bitcoin & ether aren't securities because they're "sufficiently decentralized."
It covers all of the recent SEC enforcement actions against industry players: ICOs, exchanges, brokers, & funds.
7. 这就是我为什么称之为“第一阶段”的结束。
SEC为发表这篇声明几乎努力准备了一年。他们战略性地起诉加密产业每一个子行业的一点成员，以编写发表这篇声明，用作给他人的指引。
7/ Which brings me to why I'm calling this the end of "phase one."
It looks like the SEC has been building up to this statement for almost a year. They strategically prosecuted a few members of each group in order to craft this statement as guidance for everyone else.
8. 这是一项经典的SEC策略——“用执法来指引”。
对于一个需要明确规则而非一堆拼凑命令的行业来说，这种策略是令人极度崩溃的。但是监管人员喜欢这样做：这让他们可以自由地行使决定权。
8/ This is a classic SEC strategy known as "guidance by enforcement."
It can be deeply frustrating for an industry in need of a clear set of rules rather than a patchwork of orders. But regulators like it: it leaves them free to exercise their discretion.
https://twitter.com/msantoriESQ/status/940289211223166976
9. 这种自由度对了解SEC如何执法是很重要的。
事实上，SEC很少会有公开提起诉讼的案例。大部分案例会在漫长的私下协商后得到解决，在协商时，双方会铺陈各自的优缺点并探讨如果对簿公堂会发生什么。
9/ That freedom is crucial to understanding how enforcement works.
In reality, very few SEC cases are openly litigated. Most settle after lengthy & private negotiations where both sides lay out their strengths & weaknesses and argue about what might happen if they do litigate.
10. SEC很少愿意在法庭上测试不确定的法律理论。如果他们在大的问题中失去了立场——像代币是不是证券这种问题——这可能会颠覆他们对整个行业的执法策略。
避免这种结果发生的最好方法是什么？让规则变得模棱两可。
10/ The SEC rarely wants to test uncertain legal theories in court. If they were to lose on a big issue--like whether tokens are securities--it could disrupt their enforcement strategy for the entire industry.
The best way to avoid that result? Leave the rules vague & ambiguous.
11. 这也许是为什么今天的声明*仍未*清晰定义如何将联邦证券法应用于数字资产。
该SEC声明问道：“何时数字资产能被定义为证券？”它给出的唯一答案是：“去看那篇DAO报告”。。。。尽管它是16个月之前发布的。
11/ That may be why today's statement *still* doesn't clearly define how the federal securities laws apply to digital assets.
The statement asks: "when is a digital asset a security?" The only answer it gives: "look at the DAO Report," even though that was issued ~16 months ago.
12. 该篇声明甚至对一些复杂的问题也没啥帮助，像去中心化交易所是否需要服从联邦监管。
它表示这视”相关事实和情况“而定。这无疑是“不确定，不要问我们”的律师说辞。
12/ The statement is even less helpful on complex questions like whether decentralized exchanges are subject to federal regulation.
It says this determination depends on "the relevant facts and circumstances." This is ultimate lawyer-speak for "not sure, don't @ us."
13. 该篇声明也未阐述SEC的管辖范围到底有多宽。
许多公司尝试通过逃离SEC的监管范围来应对美国监管的不确定性。但是SEC将会打击美国公民之外的海外ICO和交易所吗？。。。“不确定，不要问我们。”
13/ Nor does the statement say how far the SEC thinks its jurisdiction extends.
Many companies are responding to US regulatory uncertainty by trying to escape the SEC's reach. But will the SEC go after overseas ICOs & exchanges that exclude US citizens? "Not sure, don't @ us."
14. 言归正传，该篇声明在结尾时说道：
“咨询法律顾问有关联邦证券法的应用领域，以及在有必要的时候，联系SEC工作人员获得帮助。“
换句话说，“没啥简单的规则。要知道，就来问呗。”
14/ Driving this point home, the statement ends:
"[C]onsult with legal counsel concerning the application of the federal securities laws and contact Commission staff, as necessary, for assistance."
In other words: "there will be no simple rules. If you want answers, come ask."
15. 然而，该篇声明确实给了我们一个非常有用且很重要的保证。
“想要符合联邦证券法的规定，还是有路子的，即使对那些实施了非法的未注册的数字资产证券的发行者来说。”
SEC不会灭了ICO的！
15/ Yet, the statement does give us one very helpful & important assurance:
"[T]here is a path to compliance with the federal securities laws going forward, even where issuers have conducted an illegal unregistered offering of digital asset securities."
The SEC won't kill ICOs!
16. 所以该篇声明提出了一个关于ICO的重要观点，但在其他方面却无法为加密行业明晰。然后呢？
也许FinHub的启动能够明晰某些疑问。或者我们即将从SEC得到更多指引。
16/ So the statement makes one significant point about ICOs, but otherwise falls short on delivering clarity to the crypto industry. Now what?
Maybe FinHub will step in to clear some of this stuff up. Or maybe we'll get more guidance from the SEC soon:
https://www.coindesk.com/sec-official-says-plain-english-guidance-on-icos-is-coming
17. 但我更觉得这像是“第一阶段“（指引阶段）的收尾。
SEC现在已经提及了主要类别的市场参与者（我觉得他们目前还未提及的组别是交易者们）。我不认为他们打算透露更多。
17/ But I think it's more likely "phase one" (the guidance phase) is over.
The SEC has now addressed most of the major categories of market players (I think the only group they haven't talked about yet is the traders). I don't believe they're planning to give us much more.
18. 如果我是正确的，“第二阶段”就没有乐趣可言了——这是一项缓慢而痛苦的差事，SEC会一步步地清理币圈。
在一定程度上来说，这是正确的。SEC的职责不是制定法律——应当由国会做出规范。
18/ If I'm right, "phase two" isn't much fun at all--it's a slow, painful grind where the SEC cleans up the crypto space one settlement at a time.
In a way, that's the right approach. It really *isn't* the SEC's job to make the law--clarity really ought to come from Congress.
19. 如果你已经厌烦了法规和执法，很遗憾的告诉你，这才刚开始。
证券法只是加密货币拼图中的一片而已。我们得在如下领域里一遍遍重复这些事：税法、洗钱、制裁等等。
抱歉。。。
19/ And if you're tired of hearing about regulation & enforcement, I regret to inform you this is only the start.
The securities laws are just one piece of the crypto puzzle. We get to do this all over again with the laws on taxes, money laundering, sanctions, and more.
Sorry.
20. 有些人问：AirFox & Paragon确实得退款，但将只退给按时提交表格并自证的人，很有意思的是看看将会有多少人退款。在团体诉讼中，索取率往往低于10%。
20/ Some of you are asking:
AirFox & Paragon do also have to give refunds to ICO investors, but only to those who submit timely claim forms & prove that they're entitled to payment. It'll be interesting see how many people do so. In class actions, claims rates are often < 10%.
https://twitter.com/jchervinsky/status/1063662992359915525
公众号后台输入：
“SECDAO”获取SEC 2017 DAO报告
“3CBDC”获取三国央行数字货币报告
“交易所对比”获取CryptoCompare交易所对比报告
"G18Q3" 获取 GrayScale 加密资产18年3季报
"HK监管沙盒" 获取 香港证监会监管框架全文
"pboc18" 获取 我国央行 中国金融稳定报告2018版
"空投研究" 获取blockchain.com空投研究报告
"GDF" 获取 全球数字金融组织报告
"大陆V1" 获取 比特大陆招股书第一版
"IBM和央行" 获取 IBM与20+央行的CBDC报告
"港交所2018" 获取 港交所 FinTech運用和監管框架报告
"安永2018" 获取 安永审计最新ICO跟踪报告
"稳不稳" 获取 57种稳定币研究报告
"yale" 获取 耶鲁大学基金会年报
"coinbase规则" 获取 最新Coinbase上币规则
未来本站的所有资料更新会优先在HashBee基石群同步。
需要打包下载以上报告，请在朋友圈转发一篇hashbee的文章后，长按图片扫码加HashBee小编进群。
网友评论