Another use case that the authors view as less problematic through the lens of US law is the use of tokens to create distributed collaborative organisations (DAOs).
In this instance, tokens are used to denote membership in an organisation, with the user retaining the expectation that he or she may benefit financial from the ownership.
The report suggests that, in this case, token owners may have some control over fund utilization, âmaking them effectively managers and/or partners in the success of the entityâ, a factor that makes them less likely to be viewed as securities.
âDepending on the nature of the organization and the actual control held by people who have committed capital, âsharesâ organizations which are structured on the blockchain are likely not to be considered as securities,â the paper suggests."
After reading this it seems quite clear that Nu was launched in anticipation of some of these findings.
In particular, Jordan Lee searched for a limited number of qualified âbusiness partnersâ as opposed to a large IPO-style sale. When looking at the quote
and
The report suggests that, in this case, token owners may have some control over fund utilization, âmaking them effectively managers and/or partners in the success of the entityâ, a factor that makes them less likely to be viewed as securities.
It seems Nu falls into that category, as the initial shareholders have (seemingly) held onto their committed capital, and all shareholders can vote on how to utilize Nuâs funds (as a DAO) through custodial grants and motions. I will start using the term âDAOâ more frequently when describing Nu.
Groundbreaking ruling, terms and conditions apply.
If anyone is interested in the DCO models, needs advice or simply wants to exchange thoughts. please let me know or head straight to Swarm. Theyâre really helpful in this respect.