Laurence White’s Post

I have written a case note concerning the recent Federal Court judgement in ASIC v Web3 Ventures Pty Ltd [2024] FCA 64, concerning whether two cryptocurrency lending ('yield') products were financial products or managed investment schemes, thus requiring to be licensed/registered under Australia's Corporations Act 2001. Briefly stated the outcome was that Block Earner's Earner fixed yield lending product was a regulated financial product and scheme, while its DeFi lending product Access was not. This was a judgement on liability only, with the penalty phase yet to take place. My comments and observations are at the end of the note. #crypto #finreg #asic #chapter7 #financialproducts

Philip Treisman

Lawyer | Writer | Researcher | Mentor | Risk Adviser | Compliance and Regulatory Consultant

2mo

Thanks for this. Lucid and very useful. A couple of thoughts that occur with regard to the Earner product and the use of the words in the Act and ASIC's various statements: 'financial' and 'money or money's worth'. 'Financial' being assets in the form of money and it not being clear whether 'crypto' is money (as a medium that can be exchanged for goods and services and is used as a measure of their values on the market), is there still a gap? And, if we accept 'crypto' is money in the general sense (we know its not currency), should the Earner product rather been dealt with as deposit taking? 🤔

To view or add a comment, sign in

Explore topics