👆#TurnKey,Inc.: #SEC turning the (same)key in the lock

Surprised that commentators think there is anything new in this decision. It is simply a different type of argumentation. It is for the first time a #negative #definition of #ICO #regulation by #securities’ #laws. Thread👇

👉1. In Munchee Inc., SEC claims (sec.gov/litigation/adm…):
⛔️Munchee has no viable product
⛔️tokens sold are not usable, but will possibly be in the future
⛔️ICO will fund the development of the project
⛔️MUN price will vary AND reasonable expectation of future profits

⛔️#profits (or losses) depend solely on efforts of #Munchee #managers
⛔️#marketing MUN token in the manner to induces the purchasers to believe there is a profit expected solely for buying MUN and reselling it later.
⚠️a positive definition -> this IS a security

👉 2. In #TurnKey, #SEC claims (sec.gov/divisions/corp…):
✅the system will be fully functionable at the time of ICO
✅Tokens will be immediately useable
✅TKJ will not use funds for the development of the product

✅price of the token will not vary
✅no profits can be made (in between the lines?)
✅marketing the functionality not the profit
⚠️a negative definition: this IS NOT a security

👉 Exactly the same stance BUT 3 important #differences, when we see SEC as a #political agent:
👉Difference being in giving a negative definition of crypto #security (by what it IS NOT: TurnKey) instead of a positive definition of a crypto security (what it IS: cf. Munchee).

👉The same definition but political #message was different:
👉Munchee decision was meant to scare the #scammers (not the whole #crypto #community: let’s not forget there was 👆NO sanction👆)
👉while TurnKey’s message is to avoid #ICOs leaving the country.

Constants:
👉people should think before jumping to the roof (EMOTIONAL MANAGEMENT).
👉or consult a properly competent lawyer (LEARN).
👉lawyers should stop scaring people (GROW UP).
👉programmers should stop indulging in fears of many hallucinatory sorts (GROW UP).

WE GOT SERIOUS WORK TO DO!