BTC $75,282.17 -0.56%
ETH $2,142.11 -4.12%
BNB $688.50 -0.98%
XRP $1.12 -3.78%
SOL $87.76 -1.79%
TRX $0.3190 -0.30%
DOGE $0.0696 -2.36%
ADA $0.1774 -1.92%
BCH $241.84 -2.57%
LINK $10.57 -2.12%
HYPE $74.88 -3.53%
AAVE $128.97 -1.80%
SUI $0.8373 -1.85%
XLM $0.1477 -2.26%
ZEC $1,235.06 -1.69%
AAPL $345.27 +0.81%
AMZN $260.83 +0.47%
GOOGL $287.19 +0.96%
MSFT $534.90 +0.79%
META $613.66 +0.31%
NVDA $181.55 -3.03%
TSLA $358.35 +0.04%
SNDK $829.82 -0.45%
INTC $56.10 +0.02%
SPCX $136.88 +1.51%
MU $685.32 -0.89%
AMD $450.24 +0.87%
BTC $75,282.17 -0.56%
ETH $2,142.11 -4.12%
BNB $688.50 -0.98%
XRP $1.12 -3.78%
SOL $87.76 -1.79%
TRX $0.3190 -0.30%
DOGE $0.0696 -2.36%
ADA $0.1774 -1.92%
BCH $241.84 -2.57%
LINK $10.57 -2.12%
HYPE $74.88 -3.53%
AAVE $128.97 -1.80%
SUI $0.8373 -1.85%
XLM $0.1477 -2.26%
ZEC $1,235.06 -1.69%
AAPL $345.27 +0.81%
AMZN $260.83 +0.47%
GOOGL $287.19 +0.96%
MSFT $534.90 +0.79%
META $613.66 +0.31%
NVDA $181.55 -3.03%
TSLA $358.35 +0.04%
SNDK $829.82 -0.45%
INTC $56.10 +0.02%
SPCX $136.88 +1.51%
MU $685.32 -0.89%
AMD $450.24 +0.87%

class

All
Article
Flash

first_img SEC Updates Token Classification FAQ: Adapting to DUNA Entities, Clarifying Issues of Functionality and Decentralization Boundaries, etc

a16z Chief Legal Counsel Miles Jennings posted on X that the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has released new FAQs that further clarify its token classification framework. He pointed out that Question 1.4 clearly states that systems can maintain decentralized governance and use legal entities such as DUNA; Question 1.5 distinguishes between licensed and unlicensed systems; and Question 1.6 clarifies the difference between "functional" and "decentralized."The SEC's Division of Corporation Finance updated the relevant Q&A on November 2. The response to Question 1.4 states that participants in a widely governed functional crypto system, if not interconnected and without formal or informal collaborative arrangements other than participating in that governance system, typically do not constitute a group of persons or entities defined as "centralized parties"; even if they do form such a group, they must still possess operational, economic, or voting control to meet the definition of "centralized parties." This conclusion also applies to cases where the governance system belongs to an organization, association, or foundation, and participation is based on holding native crypto assets.The response to Question 1.5 states that centralized party oversight of participants refers to the authority to control access to the system at the protocol, validator, or user level, such as unilaterally granting or restricting access, deciding on upgrade voting procedures, controlling who can participate in consensus, or modifying rule code, revoking transactions, and access. The response to Question 1.6 states that "functional" refers to native crypto assets being usable according to the system's programmed purposes, while "decentralized" refers to the system operating autonomously without any person, entity, or group having operational, economic, or voting control; the two are distinct concepts. The above responses represent the views of the staff of the Division of Corporation Finance and do not constitute SEC rules or statements.

Bitwise and Hyperliquid request the SEC to amend cryptocurrency regulations: focusing on token classification, airdrops, and secondary market trading

The asset management company Bitwise Asset Management and the Hyperliquid Policy Center submitted a comment letter to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), requesting modifications to the proposed cryptocurrency rules to clarify token classification, airdrops, and secondary market trading rules. The SEC's proposed Regulation Crypto Assets would establish exemptions for eligible cryptocurrency financing and provide a conditional safe harbor for tokens related to investment contracts.Bitwise requested clarification on the standards for investment managers to determine whether tokens are subject to securities laws. The Hyperliquid Policy Center called for an expansion of the safe harbor scope and clarification of the rules for airdrops and token buybacks that reward network participants. The organization also requested that the SEC clarify whether unregistered intermediaries can facilitate token trading and whether tokens can be freely traded through on-chain protocols. Former SEC enforcement official John Reed Stark and Duke University finance scholar Lee Reiners called for the proposal to be withdrawn, arguing that it exceeds the SEC's statutory authority and undermines investor protection. The SEC will decide to amend, adopt, or withdraw the rules after the public comment period ends, and the final rules must be voted on by the commission before taking effect.

first_img OpenAI is facing a class-action lawsuit, accused of allowing outsourced personnel to read ChatGPT conversations

Two ChatGPT users from California filed a proposed class action lawsuit against OpenAI in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California this month, accusing the company of failing to adequately inform users that their real conversations were being handed over to external contractors for processing. The lawsuit was served to OpenAI on September 2, focusing on its internal initiative Project Lily. According to the complaint, "AI data reviewers" and "chatbot evaluators" recruited through a third-party staffing company read real ChatGPT prompts and complete conversations, summarize user intent, and score and comment on responses from four models on a scale of 1 to 7.This process is known in the industry as reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF), which is a fundamental method for enhancing chatbot capabilities. The complaint states that users were never explicitly informed that a person, rather than a machine, might be reading their conversations. OpenAI filters conversations through an automated system before human review, but the complaint alleges that the filters cannot intercept all content, and personal details sometimes still reach contractors. 404 Media first reported on the project on September 14 and found that the reviewers' dashboard included "user memory summaries," which could expose users' approximate locations, occupations, or private life information, even though usernames had been removed.OpenAI stated that such reviews aim to reduce two behaviors: chatbots behaving too much like humans and overly catering to users, referred to by researchers as "flattery." The complaint raises eight legal claims, including violations of California's Unfair Competition Law, Consumer Privacy Act, and common law claims for intrusion into private affairs, with the plaintiffs seeking damages, restitution of unjust enrichment, and punitive damages.
app_icon
ChainCatcher Building the Web3 world with innovations.