virtual currency

Subscribe to virtual currency via RSS
feature-4

Digital asset activities of licensed institutions must be approved and will be assessed for potential safety and soundness risks.

By Arthur S. Long, Pia Naib, and Deric Behar

On December 15, 2022, the New York State Department of Financial Services (NYDFS) issued final guidance to covered institutions engaging in (or seeking to engage in) virtual currency-related activity (the Guidance). Such covered institutions are New York “banking organizations” — New York-chartered banks, trust companies, private bankers, savings banks, safe…

The US Treasury opens a Pandora’s box of legal issues as it targets a decentralized finance protocol used for both licit and illicit means.

By Eric Volkman and Deric Behar

On August 8, 2022, the US Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) announced sanctions against decentralized virtual currency “mixer” Tornado Cash (and 44 associated USDC and ETH addresses) — the first action of its kind against a decentralized finance (DeFi) protocol.

Mixers (or “blenders”) are centralized…

The CFTC issues stringent guidelines for FCMs seeking to custody digital assets in connection with physically delivered futures contracts or swaps.

By Yvette D. Valdez, Adam Bruce Fovent, and Deric Behar

The US Commodity Futures Trading Commission’s (CFTC’s) Division of Swap Dealer and Intermediary Oversight (DSIO) issued CFTC Staff Letter No. 20-34 (the Advisory) on October 21, 2020, clarifying its views on the acceptance, holding, and reporting of virtual currency (e.g., bitcoin or ether) in segregated accounts by futures commission merchants (FCMs) and the development of appropriate risk management programs in relation thereto.

Specifically, the Advisory relates to virtual currencies deposited by customers with FCMs in connection with physically delivered futures contracts or swaps. Due to the “custodian risk” associated with holding virtual currency as segregated funds, the Advisory lays out specific guidance for FCMs on virtual asset acceptance and custody, and their responsibility to implement appropriate policies, procedures, and oversight programs. The Advisory does not address virtual currency held by FCMs on behalf of customers trading derivatives on markets outside of the US, or virtual currency held by FCMs on their own behalf, including in a proprietary account.

SEC relief streamlines noncustodial settlement of digital asset trades, but broker-dealer custody is still off-limits.

By Stephen P. Wink, Naim Culhaci, and Deric Behar

On September 25, 2020, the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) issued a no-action letter (the Letter) granting more leeway to registered alternative trading systems (ATSs) that settle trades involving digital asset securities. The no-action relief is intended to reduce operational and settlement risks that ATSs face as they seek ways to provide noncustodial digital asset services, including settlement of trades involving virtual currencies, coins, and tokens.

The long-awaited guidance clarifies the application of the “actual delivery” exception to leveraged virtual currency transactions with retail purchasers.

By Yvette D. Valdez, J. Ashley Weeks, and Deric Behar

Earlier this year, the US Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) approved final interpretive guidance (Guidance) concerning retail commodity transactions involving certain digital assets. The Guidance clarifies the CFTC’s views regarding the “actual delivery” exception to Section 2(c)(2)(D) of the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA) in the context of virtual currencies, and is intended for exchanges, trading platforms, custodians, and other market participants transacting in virtual currencies that are considered commodities (such as Bitcoin and Ether) and traded via leverage, margin, or other financing provided by the seller, trading platform, or other third party.

Product innovation (including in pooled investment vehicles) is encouraged, but innovation must be consistent with the law.

By Yvette D. Valdez, Douglas K. Yatter, J. Ashley Weeks, and Deric Behar

The US Commodity Futures Trading Commission’s (CFTC’s) Division of Swap Dealer and Intermediary Oversight (DSIO) Director Joshua B. Sterling issued a statement on February 10, 2020, supporting responsible digital asset product innovation, including pooled investment vehicles seeking exposure to digital assets and digital asset derivatives. The statement included an offer to assist innovators with the evaluation of new digital asset products that may not be subject to existing National Futures Association (NFA) disclosure and document review requirements.

Operators of pools that trade futures and options, swaps, or leveraged transactions referencing commodities (including digital assets such as Bitcoin and stablecoins) are required to register as commodity pool operators (CPOs) and must comply with attendant disclosure, record-keeping, and reporting requirements (unless otherwise exempt). Regardless of whether CPOs are exempt from supervisory oversight by the CFTC, they remain subject to the anti-fraud provisions of the Commodity Exchange Act when they market and offer interests in commodity pools to investors, in addition to regulatory and enforcement authority by the US Securities and Exchange Commission.

It was a year filled with tantalizing tidbits and many loose ends.

By Stephen P. Wink, Cameron R. Kates, Shaun Musuka, and Deric Behar

2019 marked the 10th year since blockchain technology was released into the wild by its still unknown inventor, Satoshi Nakamoto, who mined the first bitcoin block in January 2009. In the intervening decade, blockchain technology has catalysed widespread innovation, some of which has garnered the attention (and consternation) of US regulators. One topic in particular has spawned spirited debate: How should token-based economic activity, especially within the sphere of capital raising and value exchange, be treated under existing US regulatory infrastructure?

While US regulators did not provide any specific answers in 2019, the year was notable for providing the crypto space with additional pieces of the burgeoning regulatory puzzle in the form of agency guidance, enforcement actions, no-action letters, and highly publicized governmental concerns regarding private global stablecoins.

The IRS has published a Revenue Ruling and FAQs clarifying some long-standing virtual currency questions.

By Brian C. McManus, Elena Romanova, Stephen P. Wink, Sam (Seung Hyun) Yang, and Deric Behar

On October 9, 2019, the US Internal Revenue Service (IRS) issued its first guidance on the tax treatment of cryptocurrencies in at least five years. The guidance includes Revenue Ruling 2019-24 (Ruling) and a set of frequently asked questions (FAQs) for taxpayers who transact in virtual currencies and hold them as investment. The guidance supplements Notice 2014-21, which explains that virtual currency is treated as property for federal income tax purposes. The Ruling addresses whether a taxpayer holding a cryptocurrency has taxable income as a result of a “hard fork” with and without an “airdrop.” The FAQs provide guidance on the calculation of value and of tax basis of virtual currencies in various situations.

SEC issues cease-and-desist orders for unregistered token presales and anti-touting violations.

By Stephen P. Wink, Cameron R. Kates, Shaun Musuka, and Deric Behar

Not content to let the dog days of summer slip by, the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) recently issued two cease-and-desist orders relating to the offer, sale, and marketing of cryptocurrencies.

SimplyVital – Simply Saying a Sale Is Exempt Will Not Suffice

In the first order (SV Order), the SEC concluded that SimplyVital Health, Inc. (SimplyVital), a “health care-related blockchain ecosystem” start-up, violated the Securities Act of 1933 (Securities Act) by failing to register an initial coin offering (ICO) presale.

The regulators attempt to clarify their position on the possible custody of digital assets by broker-dealers, but questions remain.

By Stephen P. Wink, Cameron R. Kates, Shaun Musuka, and Deric Behar

The SEC and FINRA recently released a joint staff statement (Joint Statement) addressing the custody of digital asset securities by broker-dealers. For some time, registered broker-dealers and applicants have sought to facilitate digital asset transactions and the accompanying custody of such assets. However, their efforts have been stymied, in part due to a lack of interpretive guidance from the SEC and FINRA regarding how to custody digital assets in compliance with the relevant regulations. The Joint Statement is an initial step by the SEC and FINRA toward clarifying their positions on these issues. It makes clear that broker-dealers that do not seek to custody such assets but seek to otherwise engage in brokerage activities with digital assets (e.g., private placements or if the broker-dealer matches buyers and sellers who conduct settlement between themselves) should be permitted to do so. The bottom line, however, is that the regulators “are just not ready”[i] to approve broker-dealers to custody digital assets.