Loading article...
New SEC staff FAQs say announcing a token buyback on a functional network does not amount to promising essential managerial efforts, while the same pitch on an unfinished network could cross the line if sold as yield.
The U.S. Capitol building in Washington, D.C. Photo: Noclip via Wikimedia Commons (Public domain). Source
Staff at the Securities and Exchange Commission gave crypto teams an answer on September 25 to a question that had hung over a growing tactic: whether announcing a token buyback risks turning the token into a security. Where a crypto system already works, the Division of Corporation Finance wrote in new FAQs, an issuer's announcement of a buyback of a non-security crypto asset "would not constitute a representation or promise to undertake essential managerial efforts."
That phrase carries the weight in the analysis. A promise of essential managerial efforts is the element that can turn a token sale into an investment contract under the Howey test, the legal standard courts use to decide what counts as a security. Staff drew the boundary at functionality. On a network that is not yet working, the same announcement could cross the line "if the issuer presents the buyback as creating yield or return for token holders," the division wrote.
The timing follows a visible run of buyback programs. Ethena proposed one in late August, Unchained noted, leaving teams without a clear statement on how regulators would read the announcement itself. The FAQs address the announcement, not whether any particular token is a security, and they apply the March interpretation the SEC issued with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission that sorted assets into categories including digital commodities and digital tools.
Liquid staking tokens got their own answers. A staking receipt token counts as a digital tool when it receipts a digital commodity that is not itself subject to an investment contract, staff said. Tokens from protocol-based liquid staking providers may instead qualify as digital commodities where they link to the programmatic operation of a working system, according to the document.
Work performed after a network becomes functional got similar treatment. Services to secure, maintain, improve or expand a working system, including sponsoring or funding development projects, generally would not count as the managerial effort that makes a token a security. Promises to perform that work after functionality would not, on their own, satisfy that element of the Howey test, the Crypto Times reported. The response points to the August proposal on Regulation Crypto Assets, which includes a conditional safe harbor tied to an issuer completing or permanently stopping the efforts it promised.
Marketing language faces a facts-and-circumstances test rather than a blanket rule. Promoting a system's existing utility and capabilities would likely not, without more, amount to such a promise, staff said. Statements about potential features that stay indefinite and aspirational, and that do not promote profit potential, generally would not either. Whether a communication qualifies still depends on the surrounding facts, because explicit and unambiguous promises of essential managerial work can feed a reasonable expectation of profit under the Howey analysis, the report added.
Not every answer loosened the reading. If another party takes over an issuer's promises, the token stays subject to the original investment contract. A trading platform that lists a token counts as its promoter only where it fits the Securities Act definition of promoter in Rule 405, so a venue does not become a promoter only by running a secondary market, Unchained wrote.
The division also addressed who decides whether a system is functional or decentralized. Its definitions from the March release govern the classification side, but an issuer's own representations set the thresholds for judging whether it kept promises about functionality or decentralization, the Crypto Times explained.
The March interpretation remains the anchor. SEC Chair Paul Atkins said at the time that it acknowledged most crypto assets are not themselves securities. The August proposal added possible exemptions and a safe harbor, and it remains subject to rulemaking. Separately, the CFTC updated its own crypto FAQs on September 24 to cover customer funds held in tokenized investments and blockchain recordkeeping, according to the same coverage.
The new answers are staff views, not a Commission rule, and the division said they have no legal force or effect.