THE:SEC官員稱比特幣以太坊不是證券，提出6大判斷標準

DigitalAssetTransactions:WhenHoweyMetGary(Plastic)RemarksattheYahooFinanceAllMarketsSummit:CryptoThankyouAndy.Iampleasedtobeheretoday.Thiseventprovidesagreatopportunitytoaddressatopicthatisthesubjectofconsiderabledebateinthepressandinthecrypto-community–whetheradigitalassetofferedasasecuritycan,overtime,becomesomethingotherthanasecurity.Tostart,weshouldframethequestiondifferentlyandfocusnotonthedigitalassetitself,butonthecircumstancessurroundingthedigitalassetandthemannerinwhichitissold.Tothatend,abetterlineofinquiryis:“Canadigitalassetthatwasoriginallyofferedinasecuritiesofferingeverbelatersoldinamannerthatdoesnotconstituteanofferingofasecurity?”Incaseswherethedigitalassetrepresentsasetofrightsthatgivestheholderafinancialinterestinanenterprise,theanswerislikely“no.”Inthesecases,callingthetransactionaninitialcoinoffering,or“ICO,”orasaleofa“token,”willnottakeitoutofthepurviewoftheU.S.securitieslaws.Butwhataboutcaseswherethereisnolongeranycentralenterprisebeinginvestedinorwherethedigitalassetissoldonlytobeusedtopurchaseagoodorserviceavailablethroughthenetworkonwhichitwascreated?Ibelieveinthesecasestheanswerisaqualified“yes.”Iwouldliketosharemythinkingwithyoutodayaboutthecircumstancesunderwhichthatcouldoccur.BeforeIturntothesecuritieslawanalysis,letmesharewhatIbelievemaybemostexcitingaboutdistributedledgertechnology–thatis,thepotentialtoshareinformation,transfervalue,andrecordtransactionsinadecentralizeddigitalenvironment.Potentialapplicationsincludesupplychainmanagement,intellectualpropertyrightslicensing,stockownershiptransfersandcountlessothers.Thereisrealvalueincreatingapplicationsthatcanbeaccessedandexecutedelectronicallywithapublic,immutablerecordandwithouttheneedforatrustedthirdpartytoverifytransactions.Somepeoplebelievethatthistechnologywilltransforme-commerceasweknowit.Thereisexcitementandagreatdealofspeculativeinterestaroundthisnewtechnology.Unfortunately,therealsoarecasesoffraud.Inmanyregards,itisstill“earlydays.”ButIamnotheretodiscussthepromiseoftechnology–therearemanyinattendanceandspeakingheretodaythatcandoamuchbetterjobofthat.Iwouldliketofocusontheapplicationofthefederalsecuritieslawstodigitalassettransactions–thatishowtokensandcoinsarebeingissued,distributedandsold.Whileperhapsabitdryerthanthepromiseoftheblockchain,thistopiciscriticaltothebroaderacceptanceanduseofthesenovelinstruments.IwillbeginbydescribingwhatIoftensee.Promoters,inordertoraisemoneytodevelopnetworksonwhichdigitalassetswilloperate,oftensellthetokensorcoinsratherthansellshares,issuenotesorobtainbankfinancing.But,inmanycases,theeconomicsubstanceisthesameasaconventionalsecuritiesoffering.Fundsareraisedwiththeexpectationthatthepromoterswillbuildtheirsystemandinvestorscanearnareturnontheinstrument–usuallybysellingtheirtokensinthesecondarymarketoncethepromoterscreatesomethingofvaluewiththeproceedsandthevalueofthedigitalenterpriseincreases.Whenweseethatkindofeconomictransaction,itiseasytoapplytheSupremeCourt’s“investmentcontract”testfirstannouncedinSECv.Howey.Thattestrequiresaninvestmentofmoneyinacommonenterprisewithanexpectationofprofitderivedfromtheeffortsofothers.AnditisimportanttoreflectonthefactsofHowey.Ahoteloperatorsoldinterestsinacitrusgrovetoitsguestsandclaimeditwassellingrealestate,notsecurities.Whilethetransactionwasrecordedasarealestatesale,italsoincludedaservicecontracttocultivateandharvesttheoranges.Thepurchaserscouldhavearrangedtoservicethegrovethemselvesbut,infact,mostwerepassive,relyingontheeffortsofHowey-in-the-HillsService,Inc.forareturn.Inarticulatingthetestforaninvestmentcontract,theSupremeCourtstressed:“Formdisregardedforsubstanceandtheemphasisplaceduponeconomicreality.”Sothepurportedrealestatepurchasewasfoundtobeaninvestmentcontract–aninvestmentinorangegroveswasinthesecircumstancesaninvestmentinasecurity.JustasintheHoweycase,tokensandcoinsareoftentoutedasassetsthathaveauseintheirownright,coupledwithapromisethattheassetswillbecultivatedinawaythatwillcausethemtogrowinvalue,tobesoldlaterataprofit.And,asinHowey–whereinterestsinthegrovesweresoldtohotelguests,notfarmers–tokensandcoinstypicallyaresoldtoawideaudienceratherthantopersonswhoarelikelytousethemonthenetwork.IntheICOsIhaveseen,overwhelmingly,promoterstouttheirabilitytocreateaninnovativeapplicationofblockchaintechnology.LikeinHowey,theinvestorsarepassive.Marketingeffortsarerarelynarrowlytargetedtotokenusers.Andtypicallyattheoutset,thebusinessmodelandveryviabilityoftheapplicationisstilluncertain.Thepurchaserusuallyhasnochoicebuttorelyontheeffortsofthepromotertobuildthenetworkandmaketheenterpriseasuccess.Atthatstage,thepurchaseofatokenlooksalotlikeabetonthesuccessoftheenterpriseandnotthepurchaseofsomethingusedtoexchangeforgoodsorservicesonthenetwork.Asanaside,youmightask,giventhatthesetokensalesoftenlooklikesecuritiesofferings,whyarethepromoterschoosingtopackagetheinvestmentasacoinortokenoffering?Thisisanespeciallygoodquestionifthenetworkonwhichthetokenorcoinwillfunctionisnotyetoperational.Ithinktherecanbeanumberofreasons.Forawhile,somebelievedsuchlabelingmight,byitself,removethetransactionfromthesecuritieslaws.Ithinkpeoplenowrealizelabelinganinvestmentopportunityasacoinortokendoesnotachievethatresult.Second,thislabelingmighthavebeenusedtobringsomemarketing“sizzle”totheenterprise.Thatmightstillworktosomeextent,butthetrackrecordofICOsisstillbeingsortedoutandsomeofthatsizzlemaynowbemoreofapotentialwarningflareforinvestors.Somemaybeattractedtoablockchain-mediatedcrowdfundingprocess.Digitalassetscanrepresentanefficientwaytoreachaglobalaudiencewhereinitialpurchasershaveastakeinthesuccessofthenetworkandbecomepartofanetworkwheretheirparticipationaddsvaluebeyondtheirinvestmentcontributions.Thedigitalassetsarethenexchanged–forsome,tohelpfindthemarketpriceforthenewapplication;forothers,tospeculateontheventure.AsIwilldiscuss,whetheratransactioninacoinortokenonthesecondarymarketamountstoanofferorsaleofasecurityrequiresacarefulandfact-sensitivelegalanalysis.Ibelievesomeindustryparticipantsarebeginningtorealizethat,insomecircumstances,itmightbeeasiertostartablockchain-basedenterpriseinamoreconventionalway.Inotherwords,conducttheinitialfundingthrougharegisteredorexemptequityordebtofferingand,oncethenetworkisupandrunning,distributeorofferblockchain-basedtokensorcoinstoparticipantswhoneedthefunctionalitythenetworkandthedigitalassetsoffer.Thisallowsthetokensorcoinstobestructuredandofferedinawaywhereitisevidentthatpurchasersarenotmakinganinvestmentinthedevelopmentoftheenterprise.ReturningtotheICOsIamseeing,strictlyspeaking,thetoken–orcoinorwhateverthedigitalinformationpacketiscalled–allbyitselfisnotasecurity,justastheorangegrovesinHoweywerenot.Centraltodeterminingwhetherasecurityisbeingsoldishowitisbeingsoldandthereasonableexpectationsofpurchasers.Whensomeonebuysahousingunittolivein,itisprobablynotasecurity.Butundercertaincircumstances,thesameassetcanbeofferedandsoldinawaythatcausesinvestorstohaveareasonableexpectationofprofitsbasedontheeffortsofothers.Forexample,ifthehousingunitisofferedwithamanagementcontractorotherservices,itcanbeasecurity.Similarly,whenaCD,exemptfrombeingtreatedasasecurityunderSection3oftheSecuritiesAct,issoldasapartofaprogramorganizedbyabrokerwhooffersretailinvestorspromisesofliquidityandthepotentialtoprofitfromchangesininterestrates,theGaryPlasticcaseteachesusthattheinstrumentcanbepartofaninvestmentcontractthatisasecurity.Thesamereasoningappliestodigitalassets.Thedigitalassetitselfissimplycode.Butthewayitissold–aspartofaninvestment;tonon-users;bypromoterstodeveloptheenterprise–canbe,and,inthatcontext,mostoftenis,asecurity–becauseitevidencesaninvestmentcontract.Andregulatingthesetransactionsassecuritiestransactionsmakessense.TheimpetusoftheSecuritiesActistoremovetheinformationasymmetrybetweenpromotersandinvestors.Inapublicdistribution,theSecuritiesActprescribestheinformationinvestorsneedtomakeaninformedinvestmentdecision,andthepromoterisliableformaterialmisstatementsintheofferingmaterials.Theseareimportantsafeguards,andtheyareappropriateformostICOs.ThedisclosuresrequiredunderthefederalsecuritieslawsnicelycomplementtheHoweyinvestmentcontractelementabouttheeffortsofothers.Asaninvestor,thesuccessoftheenterprise–andtheabilitytorealizeaprofitontheinvestment–turnsontheeffortsofthethirdparty.Solearningmaterialinformationaboutthethirdparty–itsbackground,financing,plans,financialstakeandsoforth–isaprerequisitetomakinganinformedinvestmentdecision.Withoutaregulatoryframeworkthatpromotesdisclosureofwhatthethirdpartyaloneknowsofthesetopicsandtherisksassociatedwiththeventure,investorswillbeuninformedandareatrisk.Butthisalsopointsthewaytowhenadigitalassettransactionmaynolongerrepresentasecurityoffering.Ifthenetworkonwhichthetokenorcoinistofunctionissufficientlydecentralized–wherepurchaserswouldnolongerreasonablyexpectapersonorgrouptocarryoutessentialmanagerialorentrepreneurialefforts–theassetsmaynotrepresentaninvestmentcontract.Moreover,whentheeffortsofthethirdpartyarenolongerakeyfactorfordeterminingtheenterprise’ssuccess,materialinformationasymmetriesrecede.Asanetworkbecomestrulydecentralized,theabilitytoidentifyanissuerorpromotertomaketherequisitedisclosuresbecomesdifficult,andlessmeaningful.Andso,whenIlookatBitcointoday,Idonotseeacentralthirdpartywhoseeffortsareakeydeterminingfactorintheenterprise.ThenetworkonwhichBitcoinfunctionsisoperationalandappearstohavebeendecentralizedforsometime,perhapsfrominception.ApplyingthedisclosureregimeofthefederalsecuritieslawstotheofferandresaleofBitcoinwouldseemtoaddlittlevalue.AndputtingasidethefundraisingthataccompaniedthecreationofEther,basedonmyunderstandingofthepresentstateofEther,theEthereumnetworkanditsdecentralizedstructure,currentoffersandsalesofEtherarenotsecuritiestransactions.And,aswithBitcoin,applyingthedisclosureregimeofthefederalsecuritieslawstocurrenttransactionsinEtherwouldseemtoaddlittlevalue.Overtime,theremaybeothersufficientlydecentralizednetworksandsystemswhereregulatingthetokensorcoinsthatfunctiononthemassecuritiesmaynotberequired.Andofcoursetherewillcontinuetobesystemsthatrelyoncentralactorswhoseeffortsareakeytothesuccessoftheenterprise.Inthosecases,applicationofthesecuritieslawsprotectstheinvestorswhopurchasethetokensorcoins.Iwouldliketoemphasizethattheanalysisofwhethersomethingisasecurityisnotstaticanddoesnotstrictlyinheretotheinstrument.Evendigitalassetswithutilitythatfunctionsolelyasameansofexchangeinadecentralizednetworkcouldbepackagedandsoldasaninvestmentstrategythatcanbeasecurity.IfapromoterweretoplaceBitcoininafundortrustandsellinterests,itwouldcreateanewsecurity.Similarly,investmentcontractscanbemadeoutofvirtuallyanyasset(includingvirtualassets),providedtheinvestorisreasonablyexpectingprofitsfromthepromoter’sefforts.Letmeemphasizeanearlierpoint:simplylabelingadigitalasseta“utilitytoken”doesnotturntheassetintosomethingthatisnotasecurity.IrecognizethattheSupremeCourthasacknowledgedthatifsomeoneispurchasinganassetforconsumptiononly,itislikelynotasecurity.But,theeconomicsubstanceofthetransactionalwaysdeterminesthelegalanalysis,notthelabels.TheorangesinHoweyhadutility.Orinmyfavoriteexample,theCommissionwarnedinthelate1960saboutinvestmentcontractssoldintheformofwhiskywarehousereceipts.PromoterssoldthereceiptstoU.S.investorstofinancetheagingandblendingprocessesofScotchwhisky.Thewhiskywasreal–and,forsome,hadexquisiteutility.ButHoweywasnotsellingorangesandthewarehousereceiptspromoterswerenotsellingwhiskyforconsumption.Theyweresellinginvestments,andthepurchaserswereexpectingareturnfromthepromoters’efforts.Promotersandothermarketparticipantsneedtounderstandwhethertransactionsinaparticulardigitalassetinvolvethesaleofasecurity.Wearehappytohelppromotersandtheircounselworkthroughtheseissues.Westandpreparedtoprovidemoreformalinterpretiveorno-actionguidanceaboutthepropercharacterizationofadigitalassetinaproposeduse.Inaddition,werecognizethattherearenumerousimplicationsunderthefederalsecuritieslawsofaparticularassetbeingconsideredasecurity.Forexample,ourDivisionsofTradingandMarketsandInvestmentManagementarefocusedonsuchissuesasbroker-dealer,exchangeandfundregistration,aswellasmattersofmarketmanipulation,custodyandvaluation.Weunderstandthatmarketparticipantsareworkingtomaketheirservicescompliantwiththeexistingregulatoryframework,andwearehappytocontinueourengagementinthisprocess.Whataresomeofthefactorstoconsiderinassessingwhetheradigitalassetisofferedasaninvestmentcontractandisthusasecurity?Primarily,considerwhetherathirdparty–beitaperson,entityorcoordinatedgroupofactors–drivestheexpectationofareturn.Thatquestionwillalwaysdependontheparticularfactsandcircumstances,andthislistisillustrative,notexhaustive:Isthereapersonorgroupthathassponsoredorpromotedthecreationandsaleofthedigitalasset,theeffortsofwhomplayasignificantroleinthedevelopmentandmaintenanceoftheassetanditspotentialincreaseinvalue?Hasthispersonorgroupretainedastakeorotherinterestinthedigitalassetsuchthatitwouldbemotivatedtoexpendeffortstocauseanincreaseinvalueinthedigitalasset?Wouldpurchasersreasonablybelievesucheffortswillbeundertakenandmayresultinareturnontheirinvestmentinthedigitalasset?Hasthepromoterraisedanamountoffundsinexcessofwhatmaybeneededtoestablishafunctionalnetwork,and,ifso,hasitindicatedhowthosefundsmaybeusedtosupportthevalueofthetokensortoincreasethevalueoftheenterprise?Doesthepromotercontinuetoexpendfundsfromproceedsoroperationstoenhancethefunctionalityand/orvalueofthesystemwithinwhichthetokensoperate?Arepurchasers“investing,”thatisseekingareturn?Inthatregard,istheinstrumentmarketedandsoldtothegeneralpublicinsteadoftopotentialusersofthenetworkforapricethatreasonablycorrelateswiththemarketvalueofthegoodorserviceinthenetwork?DoesapplicationoftheSecuritiesActprotectionsmakesense?Isthereapersonorentityothersarerelyingonthatplaysakeyroleintheprofit-makingoftheenterprisesuchthatdisclosureoftheiractivitiesandplanswouldbeimportanttoinvestors?Doinformationalasymmetriesexistbetweenthepromotersandpotentialpurchasers/investorsinthedigitalasset?Dopersonsorentitiesotherthanthepromoterexercisegovernancerightsormeaningfulinfluence?Whilethesefactorsareimportantinanalyzingtheroleofanythirdparty,therearecontractualortechnicalwaystostructuredigitalassetssotheyfunctionmorelikeaconsumeritemandlesslikeasecurity.Again,wewouldlooktotheeconomicsubstanceofthetransaction,butpromotersandtheircounselsshouldconsiderthese,andother,possiblefeatures.ThislistisnotintendedtobeexhaustiveandbynomeansdoIbelieveeachandeveryoneofthesefactorsneedstobepresenttoestablishacasethatatokenisnotbeingofferedasasecurity.Thislistismeanttopromptthinkingbypromotersandtheircounsel,andstartthedialoguewiththestaff–itisnotmeanttobealistofallnecessaryfactorsinalegalanalysis.Istokencreationcommensuratewithmeetingtheneedsofusersor,rather,withfeedingspeculation?Areindependentactorssettingthepriceoristhepromotersupportingthesecondarymarketfortheassetorotherwiseinfluencingtrading?Isitclearthattheprimarymotivationforpurchasingthedigitalassetisforpersonaluseorconsumption,ascomparedtoinvestment?Havepurchasersmaderepresentationsastotheirconsumptive,asopposedtotheirinvestment,intent?Arethetokensavailableinincrementsthatcorrelatewithaconsumptiveversusinvestmentintent?Arethetokensdistributedinwaystomeetusers’needs?Forexample,canthetokensbeheldortransferredonlyinamountsthatcorrespondtoapurchaser’sexpecteduse?Aretherebuilt-inincentivesthatcompelusingthetokenspromptlyonthenetwork,suchashavingthetokensdegradeinvalueovertime,orcanthetokensbeheldforextendedperiodsforinvestment?Istheassetmarketedanddistributedtopotentialusersorthegeneralpublic?Aretheassetsdispersedacrossadiverseuserbaseorconcentratedinthehandsofafewthatcanexertinfluenceovertheapplication?Istheapplicationfullyfunctioningorinearlystagesofdevelopment?TheseareexcitinglegaltimesandIampleasedtobepartofaprocessthatcanhelppromotersofthisnewtechnologyandtheircounselnavigateandcomplywiththefederalsecuritieslaws.TheSecuritiesandExchangeCommissiondisclaimsresponsibilityforanyprivatepublicationorstatementofanySECemployeeorCommissioner.Thisspeechexpressestheauthor’sviewsanddoesnotnecessarilyreflectthoseoftheCommission,theCommissionersorothermembersofthestaff.Section2(a)(1)oftheSecuritiesActof1933(SecuritiesAct)andSection3(a)(10)oftheSecuritiesExchangeActof1934(ExchangeAct)define“security.”Thesedefinitionscontain“slightlydifferentformulations”oftheterm“security,”buttheU.S.SupremeCourthas“treatedasessentiallyidenticalinmeaning.”SECv.Edwards,540U.S.389,393(2004).Iamusingtheterm“promoters”inabroad,genericsense.Theimportantfactorinthelegalanalysisisthatthereisapersonorcoordinatedgroup(including“anyunincorporatedorganization”see5U.S.C.§77n(a)(4))thatisworkingactivelytodeveloporguidethedevelopmentoftheinfrastructureofthenetwork.Thispersonorgroupcouldbefounders,sponsors,developersor“promoters”inthetraditionalsense.Thepresenceofpromotersinthiscontextisimportanttodistinguishfromthecircumstancewheremultiple,independentactorsworkonthenetworkbutnoindividualactor’sorcoordinatedgroupofactors’effortsareessentialeffortsthataffectthefailureorsuccessoftheenterprise.SECv.W.J.HoweyCo.,328U.S.293(1946).Dependingonthefeaturesofanygiveninstrumentandthesurroundingfacts,itmayalsoneedtobeevaluatedasapossiblesecurityunderthegeneraldefinitionofsecurity–seefootnote2–andthecaselawinterpretingit.Id.at298.UnitedHousingFound.,Inc.v.Forman,421U.S.837(1975).GuidelinesastotheApplicabilityoftheFederalSecuritiesLawstoOffersandSalesofCondominiumsorUnitsinaRealEstateDevelopment,SECRel.No.33-5347(Jan.4,1973).GaryPlasticPackagingCorp.v.MerrillLynch,Pierce,Fenner&Smith,Inc.,756F.2d230(2dCir.1985).Secondarytradingindigitalassetsbyregulatedentitiesmayotherwiseimplicatethefederalsecuritieslaws,aswellastheCommodityExchangeAct.Inaddition,asSECChairmanJayClaytonhasstated,regulatedfinancialentitiesthatallowforpaymentincryptocurrencies,allowcustomerstopurchasecryptocurrenciesonmarginorotherwiseusecryptocurrenciestofacilitatesecuritiestransactionsshouldexercisecaution,includingensuringthattheircryptocurrencyactivitiesarenotunderminingtheiranti-moneylaunderingandknow-your-customerobligations.StatementonCryptocurrenciesandInitialCoinOfferings(Dec.11,2017).Inaddition,otherlawsandregulations,suchasIRSregulationsandstatemoneyservicinglaws,maybeimplicated.TheSupremeCourt’sinvestmentcontracttest“embodiesaflexibleratherthanastaticprinciple,onethatiscapableofadaptationtomeetthecountlessandvariableschemesdevisedbythosewhoseektheuseofthemoneyofothersonthepromiseofprofits.”Howey,328U.S.at299.“henamegiventoaninstrumentisnotdispositive.”Forman,421U.S.at850.Forman,421U.S.at853.Seefootnotes10and11.SECRel.No.33-5018(Nov.4,1969);InvestmentinInterestsinWhisky,SECRel.No.33-5451(Jan7,1974).Forexample,somehaveraisedquestionsabouttheofferingstructurecommonlyreferredtoasaSimpleAgreementforFutureTokens,or“SAFT.”Becausethelegalanalysismustfollowtheeconomicrealitiesoftheparticularfactsofanoffering,itmaynotbefruitfultodebateahypotheticalstructureintheabstractandnothingintheseremarksismeanttoopineonthelegalityorappropriatenessofaSAFT.Fromthediscussioninthisspeech,however,itisclearIbelieveatokenonceofferedinasecurityofferingcan,dependingonthecircumstances,laterbeofferedinanon-securitiestransaction.Iexpectthatsome,perhapsmany,maynot.IencourageanyonethathasquestionsonaparticularSAFTstructuretoconsultwithknowledgeablesecuritiescounselorthestaff.

美CFTC主席：SEC和CFTC正共同努力監管加密市場，這并非是“領地之爭”:10月3日消息，美國商品期貨交易委員會（CFTC）主席Rostin Behnam在近日接受CNBC采訪時表示，目前和美國證券交易委員會（SEC）“相處得很好”，SEC和CFTC正在共同努力監管加密市場，這并非兩個監管機構之間的領地之爭（a turf war）。Rostin Behnam補充稱，在加密監管上，主要問題在于CFTC是一個衍生品監管機構，因此無法監管現貨市場，但他們正在要求國會賦權進入比特幣、以太坊現貨市場和其他數字商品代幣市場進行監管。

對于SEC主席Gary Gensler認為大多數加密代幣都是證券，Rostin Behnam認為必須通過立法來解決這個問題，因為這是一個新型資產類別，具有不同組成部分和特征。CFTC正在用一部70年歷史的判例法來確定什么是證券，什么是商品。（CNBC）[2022/10/3 18:38:34]

BlockSec：以太坊分叉因Geth舊版本在處理預編譯合約調用時未考慮異常值的處理:BlockSec團隊發文稱，北京時間2021年8月27日20點50分左右（區塊高度13107518），以太坊突然出現分叉。BlockSec通過分析Geth的代碼版本修改和這筆造成分叉的交易（0x1cb6fb36633d270edefc04d048145b4298e67b8aa82a9e5ec4aa1435dd770ce4）厘清了以太坊分叉的根本原因：Geth舊版本在處理預編譯合約調用時，并未考慮特殊情況（corner case）下參數值的處理，從而引發重疊拷貝（overlapping copy），導致返回值異常。該漏洞（CVE-2021-39137）已提交Geth官方，目前尚未披露細節，但攻擊者已經利用漏洞實施了攻擊。

BlockSec總結稱，通過對整個攻擊流程的梳理和Geth源代碼的分析，BlockSec認為根本原因在于Geth舊版本在處理預編譯合約的調用時并未考慮異常值的處理，導致攻擊者利用該漏洞實施了重疊拷貝，影響了返回值，最終導致分叉的出現。由于Geth是BSC、HECO、Polygon等公鏈的基礎，因此該漏洞影響范圍甚廣。目前各公鏈也先后推出了升級和補丁，BlockSec也呼吁各相關節點盡早升級打上補丁，以確保基礎設施的安全。[2021/8/28 22:42:41]

動態 | 美SEC與區塊鏈公司Enigma MPC達成和解:金色財經報道，美國證券交易委員會（SEC）今天宣布與區塊鏈初創公司Enigma MPC達成和解。SEC的命令指出，ENG代幣是證券，Enigma并未根據聯邦證券法將其ICO注冊為證券發行，其ICO不符合免于除注冊的要求。SEC要求Enigma停止并制止犯下可能引起任何違反聯邦證券法注冊規定的行為。Enigma同意了一項索賠程序，將向在ICO中購買了其代幣的投資者返還資金。該公司還將把其ENG代幣注冊為證券，并向SEC提交定期報告。Enigma還同意被處以50萬美元的罰款，但不承認或否認其調查結果。[2020/2/20]

動態 | SEC推遲決定Wilshire Phoenix比特幣ETF至2020年2月26日:美國證券交易委員會(SEC)推遲對Wilshire Phoenix提交的比特幣和美國國債交易所交易基金(ETF)提案做出決定。根據當地時間上周五公布的一份文件，SEC將推遲對該提案作出決定至2020年2月26日。[2019/12/21]

動態 | Veritaseum組織者Reggie Middleton同意支付約950萬美元與SEC和解:美國證券交易委員會（SEC）表示，已經與Reggie Middleton達成和解協議，Reggie Middleton是ICO籌集1480萬美元的Veritaseum（VERI）的組織者。此前，SEC指控Middleton操縱了ICO后的證券價值，并挪用至少52萬美元的投資者資金用于個人用途。在8月份的緊急行動中，SEC凍結了Middleton的資產，并要求法院阻止他繼續經營上市公司或參與數字資產證券發行。Middleton同意支付約950萬美元和解。Middleton有義務支付847萬美元作為歸還不當得利及預估利息，外加100萬美元的民事罰款。（CoinDesk）[2019/11/2]

Tags：THEENTINGANDtogetherbnbH補丁ENTCInflation Hedging Coinsand幣有沒有價值

比特幣價格