Tag: ICO

Risk Alert on Digital Asset Securities

The Securities and Exchange Commission’s Division of Examination has been visiting firms that have been involved in digital assets. The Division published a Risk Alert that you should read if your firm has digital assets in client accounts.

Right off the bat, the risk alert hedges on its definition of “digital assets” to say that it a particular digital asset may or may not be a security. I believe the SEC’s current position is that BitCoin is not a security. Everything else it potentially a security.

There is the usual expected requirements for investment advisers and fund managers: books and records, disclosure and custody.

Custody continues to be one of the most difficult aspects of putting digital assets in client accounts. Have fun trying to meet the custody rule requirements. Even if you do, the security around digital asset keys should keep you up at night. That’s true for Bitcoin as well, even though its not a security.

One highlight was due diligence and evaluation of the risks involved in digital assets. You really need to vet these investments like you would any other investment recommendation. I like this example of required diligence:

“that the adviser understands the digital asset, wallets, or any other devices or software used to interact with the relevant digital asset network or application, and the relevant liquidity and volatility of the digital asset)”

Sources:

The One with the Fake ComplianceGuard

Compliance; solve it with the blockchain. Operational due diligence; solve it with the blockchain. Shortcomings of separately managed accounts; solve it with the blockchain. Financial audits; solve it with the blockchain.

Shaun MacDonald, managed to squeeze $30 million in ICO funding from investors for his idea to create ComplianceGuard, a blockchain based tool for funds, and a blockchain terminal, crypto-focused version of the ubiquitous Bloomberg Terminal. According to the SEC complaint, the tools were not in production. That and other materially false and misleading statements were made in the illegal sale of securities that was the ICO.

The first problem is that Shaun MacDonald is really Boaz Manor. In 2010, Mr. Manor pleaded guilty in Ontario, Canada to the crimes of laundering the proceeds of a crime and disobeying an order of a court. Both charges related to the 2005 collapse of the hedge fund firm Portus Group. Mr. Manor darkened his hair, grew a beard, and used aliases to hide his identity and conceal the fact that he had served a year in prison.

It started with ComplianceGuard. A box-shaped device that was supposed to do something compliance-y. It was enough to convince people to give him $775,000 through a token offering. It looked something like this. The whitepaper is full of great compliance-related themes. But I don’t see any actual description of a solution to those compliance requirements

Mr. Manor managed to put the device in the hands of a few hedge funds. But according to the SEC complaint, none of them actually used it. It basically functioned as an extra electronic hard drive for the storage of manually entered transaction data. None of the funds paid for the devices.

Then the company pivoted harder to blockchain with the blockchain terminal. That caught the attention of token purchasers and the company raised $30 million.

Clearly, it was more sexy than compliance.

The company actually made a product and sent it to to funds for use. It’s not clear than anyone actually used those terminals or even if they did anything useful.

I’m going to guess that the ICO fundraising was better than the terminals.

In the end, the SEC has all of the alleged fraud. But it also has the fraud of the disguised Mr. Moran.

On top of that, it has a claim for the unregistered sale of securities. The company did file a for Form D for 506(c) offering. But that form of offering requires you to take reasonable steps to verify that the purchaser is an accredited investor. The SEC claims that those steps were not taken.

Sources:

Monster’s ICO

Before all my music was digital and playing out of bluetooth speakers, I was a big fan of Monster Cables for connecting my audio and video equipment. Now those cables just sit in a plastic bin in the basement. I hadn’t thought about Monster Cables until the SEC has published the first “bedbug” letter on EDGAR and it was aimed at Monster. The letter from the Division of Corporation Finance is in response to a proposed monster money offering by Monster Products, Inc. Rather than providing a detailed examination and issuing comments, the staff letter to Monster suggests trying again.

Public company filings are not in my area of expertise so I’m not sure what the SEC was concerned about.

What caught my attention was the crazy scheme that Monster is trying to put together. Monster wants to offer up to three hundred million of its to-be-created Monster Money Tokens (“MMNY”) for gross proceeds of $300,000,000.

Monster plans to use the Ethereum blockchain technology on its E-commerce website to create the new Monster Money Network where consumers may use either MMNY Tokens or fiat currencies to purchase Monster products and services. The company intends to utilize the blockchain technology to its marketing, accounting and audit, internal control and shipping management functions.

In the event of an “ICO Failure” investors in the tokens may convert them into Monster common stock at the rate of four tokens per share of stock. The “ICO Failure” means that i) MMNY Tokens not have been traded on a cryptocurrency exchange or a U.S. stock exchange by June 30, 2020 because either this registration statement is not declared effective by the SEC or MMNY Tokens are not approved for trading on any such exchange market; or ii) MMNY Tokens have ceased trading on or before June 30, 2020 due to legal or administrative enforcement actions by the SEC, the CFTC, or any other government authorities.

The ICO seems a Hail Mary to turn the company around. It was acquired by a blank check company earlier this year. It as unable to timely file its latest 10Q. It fired its auditor. It replaced its CFO.

Monster trying something new by basically pre-selling Monster products and services through the MMNY offering. It’s issuing gift certificates, tarted up with blockchain.

I saw this at the same time I saw the UBI Blockchain fraud. That company was originally JA Energy, but reincorporated as UBI Blockchain Internet. Its business was to encompasses the research and application of blockchain technology with a focus on the internet of things covering areas of food, drugs and healthcare. UBI had no revenues and has yet to develop any products for sale. The stock price shot up from $3.70 per share to over $87 at one point on a surge of buying just because the company had blockchain in its name. The SEC temporarily suspended trading in UBI Blockchain stock earlier this year due to concerns about the accuracy of assertions in its SEC filings and unusual and unexplained market activity.

Unlike UBI Blockchain, Monster has an operating business. It’s just not doing well. As a turnaround, it proposes to sell tarted up gift certificates for products that are mostly in bins in the basement.

What type of monster is it?

Sources:

Fraudulent Coin Offerings

I’ve been highly critical of cryptocurrency. It doesn’t act like a currency: people are not using it to actually buy goods and service (at least not legal goods and services).  The world of coin offerings has been the wild west. In many instances, the sponsors are just ignorant of the securities law implications of their coin offering structures. Others are scams or turn quickly into scams.

The most recent coin offering to come crumbling down is the CTR Token sponsored by CentraTech. The SEC charged Sohrab Sharma and Robert Farkas with masterminding the fraudulent Initial Coin Offering.

What was the case for using Centra? I read through the whitepaper and it’s full of nothing. There is some nonsense abut currency conversion and storing coins in the Centra Wallet. As near as I can tell the only thing Centra Token did was get the boxer Floyd Mayweather to endorse it.

Centra Tech claimed that it was producing a debit card backed by Visa and MasterCard that would allow you to instantly convert hard-to-spend cryptocurrencies into U.S. dollars.  The SEC alleges that Centra had no relationships with Visa or MasterCard.

Sharma and Farkas stated that funds raised in the Initial Coin Offering would help Centra Tech build a suite of financial products. This turned it into a securities offering because the offering claimed that token holders would be paid “rewards” of 0.8% of the total revenue that Centra earned from Centra Card transactions. That makes the ICO a securities offering.

This goes back to the Howey definition of a “investment contract” as “investment in a common enterprise with the expectation of profit to be derived through the essential managerial efforts of someone other than the investor.” If it meets the definition of “investment contract” its a security.

“Endorsements and glossy marketing materials are no substitute for the SEC’s registration and disclosure requirements as well as diligence by investors.” – Steve Peikin, co-director of the SEC’s Division of Enforcement.

My Favorite part of the fraud is the use of fictional executives. “Michael Edwards” was listed as the Chief Executive Officer and Co-Founder of Centra, with an impressive LinkedIn profile. He had an M.B.A. from Harvard University and an extensive career in banking, most recently as a Senior VP at Wells Fargo. Edwards was not a real person. A photo of Edwards used in an early version of Centra’s website was that of a Canadian professor of Physiology and Pathophysiology with no relationship to the company. Later versions of the marketing materials included instead a picture of one of Defendant’s relatives purporting to be of “Edwards.”

The big surprise is that it took the SEC this long to build a case. The New York Times put together a profile of the company in October that was full of red flags.

Several weeks ago Sharma and Farkas received subpoenas from the SEC about the Centra ICO.  I would assume that they realized their time was short. According to the SEC’s complaint, Farkas made flight reservations to leave the country around April 1. That must be what put the SEC and the Department of Justice on an accelerated schedule. Farkas was arrested before he was able to board his flight.  Sharma was also arrested.

As of March 30, Centra’s bank accounts were depleted and most of its employees had been terminated according to the SEC complaint.

Sources:

Yet Another ICO Scam

With Bitcoin hitting stratospheric pricing levels, there are scams aplenty trying to cash in on tulip-mania around Bitcoin. This chart from the Wall Street Journal says it all.

Of those trying to cash in, I’m sure some actually have legitimate business purposes and are trying to find new ways to operate financial systems. But many are just scams trying to fool some people out of cash. The latest scammer is PlexCoin. The SEC filed a complaint for an emergency action to freeze the scammers assets and stop selling any more.

Dominic Lacroix, and his company, PlexCorps, were running an initial coin offering of its PlexCoin. It launched the ICO on August 6.

PlexCorps claimed that if you invested $100 USD into PlexCoin at the ICO, you would obtain 769.23 PlexCoin, with an estimated value of $1,353, a return on your investment of 1354% “in 29 days or less”. It’s unclear how they reached the value of “$1.76 per PlexCoin”.

It wasn’t clear what was behind the PlexCoin or who was behind it. That didn’t stop ten of thousands of investors from plowing $15 million into the company.

It turns out that one of the people behind PlexCorps is Dominic Lacroix. In July, the Autorité des marchés financiers (AMF), Quebec’s chief financial regulator, had issued orders prohibiting Lacroix and several associated companies from promoting “any form of investment” to investors in Quebec and operating an investment scheme from within the province, even if it was targeted solely at investors who did not live in Quebec. Lacroix had several previous problems with the Quebec financial regulators.

According to the SEC complaint, the ICO of PlexCoin was an offering of securities.

PlexCoin, like Bitcoin has limited utility. There is no argument that crypto-currencies are growing in value. The problem is that even though there is value being created, it’s not being used as a currency very much. Rightly so. It makes poor economic sense to use a rapidly rising commodity to pay for a transaction if you have alternatives.

I think it is a commodity and not a currency. Theoretically, you could pay for your groceries with gold if the store was willing to accept the gold. Like a commodity, the commodity future exchanges are going to start trading on Bitcoin futures. The CBOE starts on December 11, following by the CME on December 18. It will be interesting to see whether some short selling will put pressure on BitCoin’s rise in value.

Sources:

Celebrity Endorsements of ICOs and other Securities

With BitCoin breaking through the $10,000 barrier and growing interest in the uses of the underlying blockchain technology, everyone is looking to cash in using virtual currency. As with an IPO, the goal of investors in an Initial Coin Offering is get in early and cheap before the market takes the price up. The Securities and Exchange Commission warned sponsors that ICOs look a lot like a securities offerings and need to comply with securities laws.

It turns out that ICO sponsors are violating SEC rules and FTC rules.

Looking forward to participating in the new @cobinhood Token! ZERO fee trading! #CryptoCurrency#BitCoin#ETH – https://t.co/1XFiosn22Spic.twitter.com/A7es0C2Rxr
— Jamie Foxx (@iamjamiefoxx) September 18, 2017

Looking forward to participating in the new @LydianCoinLtdToken! #ThisIsNotAnAd #CryptoCurrency #BitCoin #ETH #BlockChainpic.twitter.com/a8kT9eHEko
— Paris Hilton (@ParisHilton) September 3, 2017

The SEC warned that celebrity endorsements of securities need to disclose the nature, source, and amount of any compensation paid, directly or indirectly, by the company in exchange for the endorsement.  (Obviously, that is hard to do in the 140 280 characters of Twitter.) A failure to disclose this information is a violation of the anti-touting provisions of the federal securities laws. That also potentially pulls the celebrity endorser into possible anti-fraud provisions of the securities laws

There are the advertising rules from the Federal Trade Commission that also require disclosure of payment for endorsements. The FTC Guidelines make it clear that celebrities must disclose their relationships with advertisers when making endorsements outside the context of traditional ads, such as on social media.

Ms. Hilton’s endorsement of Lydian Coin was deleted after Forbes reporters uncovered the checkered legal past of the founder of Lydian Coin.

Sources: