bait. they are to decide if <i>those</i> NFTs were issued in a securities transaction<p>asset types themselves are not securities and neither a judge or the regulator is trying to decide that. transactions involving those assets can be securities and are tightly regulated.<p>some assets are standardized and only issued in a specific set of transactions 100% of the time, such that its redundant to call them anything other than securities. for assets that aren't standardized, the sequence of transactions has to be analyzed to determine if that set of transactions constituted a securities transaction.<p>this can be corroborated by how the courts have been reaching the conclusion that crypto asset's primary market (the initial sell or distribution from the creator to purchasers) has to be treated different from the secondary market trading (where the prices are listed on exchanges and fluctuate all day, everyday, which attracts most headlines and mindshare).<p>clarity from Congress about what level of consumer and investor protection is desired is what's really lacking here. The "securities" framework doesn't do that.
Do famous paintings/artworks count as securities? Some people like to invest in them, and there are lots of “fintech”s offering fine art investment as a service
I wouldn't call it bait. That's the nature of case law. If they decide these NFTs are Securities, then given their criteria, other NHTs <i>can</i> be securities. If they use the Howey test then they are also deciding that is the proper test for this scenario. Spoiler: They did decide on the Howey test and also against Draft Kings.
<a href="https://www.kmllp.com/news/judge-holds-digital-trading-cards-are-securities-under-the-howey-test-in-km-lawsuit-against-draftkings" rel="nofollow">https://www.kmllp.com/news/judge-holds-digital-trading-cards...</a>