Is Sam Altman's Worldcoin an unregistered securities offering in the United States? Probably.
Why?
1) I think it clearly satisfies the Howey test for an investment contract.
a) Investment of money ✅(yes, providing biometric data as a means for paying for an investment counts).
b) common enterprise ✅✅ (hello, Worldcoin, Inc.)
c) investor led to expect profits ✅ (obviously, why else would one part with their personal biometric data)?
d) from the efforts of others ✅(again, obviously. Who is putting those orbs in all those cities around the world?)
2) It is not saved by any purported consumptive use or "utility" even if at some point such utility is established -- growing caselaw (including recent XRP decision) reveals that utility simply doesn't magically unmake a securities offering. (See, e.g. last years LBRY case)
3) It's pretty significant that Worldcoin kept for itself a significant allocation of the token for itself. Judge's have traditionally found this problematic in securities cases (I wonder if leadership had to give up their eyeballs?)
The timing of launching it in the immediate aftermath of the partial victory for Ripple in the XRP decision is curious. But even under that decision's logic (which I don't think ultimately holds up), Worldcoin seems like a prime candidate for the SEC to target.
Just another reason why I love Bitcoin. It’s anti-fragile due to its inherent properties, yes. But it was also designed and distributed in a methodical way to avoid legal scrutiny for as long as possible—until it has grown to something they simply cannot stop.
Worldcoin will go the way of Libra
BryanJ / Bryan Jacoutot
npub1yq…5ys35
2023-07-24 20:49:53
Author Public Key
npub1yq30qlvj0zgxgt6884avm07qdxuuk5d5xvce4md3rvlrf8rp62xqy5ys35Published at
2023-07-24 20:49:53Event JSON
{
"id": "d1c1dfcf1238f63c387f4ba2a7ccc7987d1f0e3e50139eeec6c0961749e565ef",
"pubkey": "2022f07d927890642f473d7acdbfc069b9cb51b433319aedb11b3e349c61d28c",
"created_at": 1690231793,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [],
"content": "Is Sam Altman's Worldcoin an unregistered securities offering in the United States? Probably. \n\nWhy?\n\n1) I think it clearly satisfies the Howey test for an investment contract.\n\na) Investment of money ✅(yes, providing biometric data as a means for paying for an investment counts).\nb) common enterprise ✅✅ (hello, Worldcoin, Inc.)\nc) investor led to expect profits ✅ (obviously, why else would one part with their personal biometric data)?\nd) from the efforts of others ✅(again, obviously. Who is putting those orbs in all those cities around the world?)\n\n 2) It is not saved by any purported consumptive use or \"utility\" even if at some point such utility is established -- growing caselaw (including recent XRP decision) reveals that utility simply doesn't magically unmake a securities offering. (See, e.g. last years LBRY case)\n\n3) It's pretty significant that Worldcoin kept for itself a significant allocation of the token for itself. Judge's have traditionally found this problematic in securities cases (I wonder if leadership had to give up their eyeballs?)\n\nThe timing of launching it in the immediate aftermath of the partial victory for Ripple in the XRP decision is curious. But even under that decision's logic (which I don't think ultimately holds up), Worldcoin seems like a prime candidate for the SEC to target.\n\nJust another reason why I love Bitcoin. It’s anti-fragile due to its inherent properties, yes. But it was also designed and distributed in a methodical way to avoid legal scrutiny for as long as possible—until it has grown to something they simply cannot stop.\n\nWorldcoin will go the way of Libra",
"sig": "13b437ab36a50f8f509caf33d8460393164bde6a969473e4a5bfc58c3ff1a321f7931875ca461fad2ede79ed8ede0045b96a0fa814dbec1dceb8bb9c0b471481"
}