I would think there's a difference between hawking a security vs a product or platform. FTX was technically a trading platform*. If Curry had said First National Bank was a safe place to open an account, then later the owners funneled all its money to an off-share haven, would Curry have been held liable as simply a spokesman? I doubt it. But if the bank were a public company and Curry had made it sound like they were so successful they'd be opening a "branch near you" so get on the investment train before it leaves the station, that's a different story (again IMHO).
In sort of related news, is an NFT technically a security or a collectible? On the one hand, it's a smart contract no different than all cryptocurrencies are. On the other, they have a different stated intent, i.e. they are not a means to an end like a currency, but rather their value is inherent. That being said, you could probably make an argument that Dogecoin is more similar to an NFT despite its name, simply because it was always intended to be a goofball collectible, not an actual currency. The fact each Dogecoin is identical in appearance is like saying if you mint one particular NFT a million times, what's the difference? This distinction is important if you happen to a be a billionaire who now owns Twitter. :)
- Jeff
* FTX did have its own FTT token. If Curry had said FTT was a safe investment, as a paid spokesman, then I would assume he would be culpable. But to my knowledge, he never did. |
