19 Aug 2019 #Ethereum
The US SEC continues to chase after suspicious ICOs, this time filing an Administrative Proceeding in regards to the ICO held by a project called SimplyVital health. The company's token sale took place in late 2017/early 2018. However, the SEC claims that the company was selling securities.
SimplyVital Health came up with its 'Health Cash' tokens (HLTH), and launched a crowdfunding round in the form of a token sale. Their idea was to create 200 million units, and offer 40 million in a presale. Soon enough, however, SEC had announced that they reached a settlement with the firm.
At the same time, SimplyVital Health also posted a document on its own website, pointing out that the settlement would allow them to refocus the development of their blockchain-based solutions. The company's CEO, Kat Kuzmeskas, stated that the firm is glad to put this issue behind. They are now focusing on the next step in the project's evolution. Quite recently, the project launched a new 'sana' service design, which would allow physicians to provide better care, and reduce the costs.
Meanwhile, the SEC's document claims that the project raised over 15,200 ETH since September 25th, 2017, until April 3rd, 2018. This was around $3 million back in April 2018. The project raised the amount from 52 individuals and ICO pools. At least 13,800 is estimated to have come from purchasers with whom the firm has yet to take steps and verify their investor status.
Earlier this year, in January, SimplyVital Health announced that it wouldn't issue HLTH tokens, after all. They also guaranteed that all the funds would be returned to investors, which was the decision that came after the SEC contacted the company. It seems that the regulator was able to confirm that the funds were returned, which is why they had decided not to impose a civil penalty.
The SEC has made similar pursuits in the past, and it often reached different settlements, including the financial penalty. In some cases, this even included a requirement to file registration settlements, which is a very expensive pursuit on the regulators' part. Because of that, it is all the more interesting to see that the exchange is taking a very mild approach this time.
Most of the time, the SEC is after post-DAO offerings, as well as direct fraud. This time, however, the entire pursuit was settled calmly and with no issues, which could encourage others in a similar situation to contact the regulator, and come to similar terms.
These days, most in the US accept the fact that the SEC considers almost all tokens securities. With the securities laws already out there, all they can do is obey. This was noticed as far back as in 2018, when ICOs started evolving into STOs. Meanwhile, many are hoping that the Congress might take an initiative and create a safe place for ICOs in the US too, similar to what is happening in multiple other jurisdictions.
Many other coin issuers received the SEC's No-Action letter, with one of the latest ones being Pocketful of Quarters. Interestingly enough, their token is not considered security.
Get cryptocurrency price predictions, forecasts with analysis and news right to your inbox.
© 2015-2021 Crypto-Rating.com
The usage of this website constitutes acceptance of the following legal information. Any contracts of financial instruments offered to conclude bear high risks and may result in the full loss of the deposited funds. Prior to making transactions one should get acquainted with the risks to which they relate. All the information featured on the website, including information about the cryptocurrencies and bitcoin is intended solely for informational purposes, is not a means of advertising them, and doesn't imply direct instructions for investing. Crypto Rating shall not be liable for any loss, including unlimited loss of funds, which may arise directly or indirectly from the usage of this information. The editorial staff of the website does not bear any responsibility whatsoever for the content of the comments or reviews made by the site users about cryptocurrencies. The entire responsibility for the contents rests with the authors. Reprint of the materials is available only with the permission of the editorial staff.