In June, the SEC gave a number of its most tangible advice so far that cryptoassets can begin as centralized jobs, possibly originally sold under regulations, and finally become”decentralized” and thus no more sponsor-controlled, and no longer sold or transferred under regulations.
It is logical that a decentralized protocol doesn’t match the definition of a security.
By way of instance,”is the system forkable” is 1 simple (but unfinished ) heuristic. Another is:”will the network continue working if the first sponsor went out of business”.
This second one is perhaps the most concrete, and I feel the net effect of the SEC advice is that we’ll start to see protocol development firms (the first”patrons” of cryptonetworks) set a path to intentionally self-destruct.
Already we’ve seen a company / base split as a means of placing the protocol in the hands of a longterm custodian that’s not the first sponsor. Some jobs may bake self-destruction in their first charter (and any related coin distributions or offerings ); others may create self-destruction component of the protocol software development roadmap.
But regardless of mechanism, I think many projects will start to contemplate their”route to decentralization” — that’s the takeaway in the SEC guidance, and a self-destructing firm (leaving behind only an autonomous, decentralized protocol) is the logical outcome.
This will be a messy procedure. By way of instance, the recent launch of the EOS network revealed some of those challenges of handing off a protocol and community to the community. But luckily we’ll get to see a lot more real-world experiments as jobs move from the fundraising phase and to the construct ->ship->decentralize stage.