Bill Morgan, a renowned attorney and crypto enthusiast, recently took to social media to express his confusion and exasperation over a statement by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in a legal brief related to a crypto case involving Coinbase.

A Bewildering Statement

The passage from the SEC’s document that caught Morgan’s attention raised questions about the difference between crypto assets and digital tokens. It suggested that while crypto assets might hold some inherent value, the digital token allows access to that value. Moreover, the document indicated that they wouldn’t hold any worth without the affiliated services or intellectual property these crypto assets represent.

Morgan’s Interpretation

Bill Morgan was dismayed at the passage, questioning its clarity and legal rationale. He was especially puzzled by the statement, which essentially seemed to convey that if digital assets hold any intrinsic worth, it’s the digital asset itself that unveils this value. Morgan found this representation to be redundant and perplexing.

Furthermore, Morgan scrutinized the assertion that a digital token’s only worth is linked to its associated investment contract. To him, it appeared as a roundabout way of suggesting that the value of a token solely stems from a shared venture where the worth arises from collective contributions.

He also highlighted the ambiguity of the statement that tokens are devoid of value without connection to a service or intellectual rights. Morgan remarked that this notion seemed inconsistent when applied to the analysis of an investment contract. He concluded that the passage might be one of the most puzzling explanations the SEC has ever produced concerning the essence and valuation of cryptocurrency.

Expert Chimes In 

Anders, a recognized digital asset researcher, responded to Morgan’s post, hinting at the SEC’s possible ulterior motive. He posed a question wondering if the SEC’s statement was a veiled attempt to counter Torres’ “in dicta” ruling in the Ripple case, which stated that XRP itself isn’t a security.

Bill responded, suggesting that the SEC desperately tries to build a conceptual framework to convince courts that any crypto sale amounts to an investment contract. He warned that only XRP and Bitcoin would be recognized as not being securities if the SEC succeeds, leaving the rest in murky waters.