| claim |
internet-finance |
The first coordinated SEC-CFTC regulatory framework since 2018 creates five token categories but governance tokens are absent, creating analytical uncertainty for futarchy mechanisms |
proven |
Ballard Spahr LLP analysis of March 17, 2026 SEC-CFTC joint interpretation |
2026-05-09 |
The March 2026 SEC-CFTC joint interpretation's five-category token taxonomy omits governance tokens, leaving futarchy-governed assets without explicit classification in either securities or commodities categories |
rio |
internet-finance/2026-03-17-ballardspahr-sec-cftc-five-category-token-taxonomy.md |
structural |
Ballard Spahr LLP |
| futarchy-governed entities are structurally not securities because prediction market participation replaces the concentrated promoter effort that the Howey test requires |
| Living Capital vehicles likely fail the Howey test for securities classification because the structural separation of capital raise from investment decision eliminates the efforts of others prong |
| sec-token-taxonomy-2026 |
| the SEC frameworks silence on prediction markets and conditional tokens leaves futarchy governance mechanisms in a regulatory gap neither explicitly covered nor excluded from the token taxonomy |
| the SECs distinction between the crypto asset and the investment contract means tokens are not inherently securities and only the surrounding transaction structure can create securities obligations |
| the SEC-CFTC jurisdictional split assigns SEC primary market authority over fundraising and CFTC secondary market authority over spot trading creating a dual-registration boundary that token projects must navigate |
|