This case is literally about celebrities being paid by the developers to market the product. Banning price discussions on Discord doesn’t absolve the developers of responsibility.
and the celebrities simply need to disclose what their compensation is, when the asset involved is already determined to be a security. I would actually like to see that practice extended to consumer products that aren't securities.
unfortunately here, the SEC is still relying on an ambiguous interpretation of securities, unilaterally deeming something a security and simultaneously charging people that promoted it, who are relying on assurances and a parallel set of behaviors that something is not a security.
unfortunately here, the SEC is still relying on an ambiguous interpretation of securities, unilaterally deeming something a security and simultaneously charging people that promoted it, who are relying on assurances and a parallel set of behaviors that something is not a security.