Stinson Leonard Street Dodd Frank

MAKING SENSE OF DODD-FRANK

The Dodd-Frank Act has broad and deep implications that will touch every corner of financial services and multiple other industries. This site, developed and maintained by attorneys at Stinson Leonard Street, is dedicated to making sense of this complex legislation and helping businesses understand how it will affect them specifically. Our Bloggers »

Dodd-Frank

Blockstack Expects to be the First Regulation A+ Token Offering

by   |   April 12, 2019

According to this announcement, Blockstack expects to be the first SEC Regulation A+ qualified token offering.

I’m not touting or endorsing the potential Blockstack offering. But viewing from the outside in, there’s a good chance they’re right.

They are backed by a bona-fide VC firm that appears to want to devote the resources to do it right. Blockstack expects to spend $1,500,000 with a good Silicon Valley law firm to get it done.

You can find the offering circular here. The Form 1-A was initially submitted confidentially to the SEC, and you can find responses to what appears to be the first round of comments here.

There is also this nifty analysis by Blockstack’s law firm which addresses the following points:

  • Miners are not broker-dealers though they receive fees for recording transactions
  • Neither Blockstack nor miners need to register as transfer agents or clearing agencies
  • Neither the Blockstack network nor browser extension are required to register as an exchange or ATS
  • No Blockstack entity is a money transmitter or money services business
  • Blockstack is not eligible to conduct this 1-A offering without engaging the services of a registered transfer agent
  • Transactions of Stacks Tokens to pay fees on the Blockstack network do not violate Regulation M
  • Blockstack does not meet the definition of “investment company” under the Investment Company Act of 1940 because the Tokens will be “non-securities” in Blockstack’s hands

It looks like Blockstack initially requested confidential treatment of the above analysis but I’m guessing it was shot down because where is the competitive harm?