TL;DR

• Here's what the Securities Clarity Act is proposing, in simple language: why not give crypto projects the opportunity to raise money and build for a little while?

• Then, if they're not decentralized after a certain amount of time - we regulate them as if they're securities.

• This way US investors stay protected, while the growing blockchain industry is supported in our country. Sound good?

Full Story

You may have heard the crypto community say they want 'clear and fair' regulation, using this sort of language to argue the point:

...but what the hell does that all mean?

The idea that ol' Tom is putting forward here is that when most crypto projects start out, they are securities by law.

Generally, if an investment of money is made in a business (or 'common enterprise') with the expectation of a profit to come through the efforts of someone other than the investor, it is considered a security.

That 'common enterprise' is easily defined when its a small team of developers selling a crypto token to fund initial development.

But when that small group is no longer in control, and anyone in the world can contribute to changes to how the token functions - it breaks the definition of a security.

So here's what's being proposed, in simple language:

"Hey, why not give these projects the opportunity to raise money and build for a little while...

Then, if they're not decentralized after a certain amount of time - we regulate them as if they're securities.

This way US investors stay protected, while the growing blockchain industry is supported in our country.

Sound good?"