I appreciate the outstanding effort that went into this. It would help me a bit if I understood what the goal with this effort is.
For example, is it to help BanklessDAO members learn the risks they may face depending on the jurisdiction in which they reside? The introduction seems to rule that out (“this paper does not aim to provide interested people (community members and prospective community members) definitive answers on the BANK token’s proper legal treatment which, as noted above, may vary by circumstance and jurisdiction.”) Plus, BANK owners generally wouldn’t face any risk just for owning a token.
Is it to chart a course for BanklessDAO going forward based on jurisdictions where existing laws are more crypto friendly? Is it an effort to get a grasp on existing law so that we can propose some transnational set of standards for Bankless and other DAOs that issue tokens? Some or all of these?
Again, it’s clear that some very careful thought and research went into this. Thank you. I was a securities litigator in the USA for many years. To me, it’s always been clear that BANK and most other tokens are securities under existing law. But, I don’t think there’s a snowball’s chance that the existing legal structures can deal with this, so I’m curious if there’s some other goal or aspiration here. Thanks!