According to one legal analyst, Meta Lawman, six law professors from top universities are helping Coinbase in a case against the SEC. They disagree with how the SEC sees certain crypto tokens as “investment contracts.”
He said that the professors say that historically, “investment contracts” meant investors getting a share of future money or assets. They also point to a 1946 decision that said the same thing: investors should keep having an interest in the company’s money or assets to count as an “investment contract.”
This goes against the SEC’s idea that some crypto tokens on other markets are investment contracts. In his opinion, this is a strong hit to the SEC’s idea and it could change how we talk about and control cryptocurrencies.
However, market analyst Dave Weisberger’s comment suggests that he sees the Coinbase case as a more obvious instance of the SEC going beyond its authority compared to the Ripple case. Dave added, “Seems a tall order as it makes little sense under the law, and briefs like this one shred that argument.”
He also highlights that for the SEC to succeed in the Ripple case, it wouldn’t be enough for them to just win an interim appeal. This case is likely to revolve around Ripple’s systematic sales for fundraising purposes. The SEC will need to go further by convincing the courts that token transactions, which aren’t linked to fundraising for a shared project, can still be seen as investment contracts.
However, Mr Huber’s reply suggests otherwise. He wrote, “Disagree! Coinbase itself describes in their own SEC filings that they are completely dependent on Ethereum and Bitcoin sales. Coinbase was always supporting the @SECGov monopoly approach for Bitcoin and Ethereum. They are now acting like they fight for the entire industry because the Berger/Peikin /Hinman /Clayton bribes expired.”
Source: https://coinpedia.org/news/ripple-vs-sec-winning-interlocutory-appeal-wont-guarantee-sec-a-triumph/