for years crypto vcs have been pushing for legal clarity on security status for tokens now they are saying what they actually want: for tokens to be blanket-defined as not securities, even those with the structural properties of investment contracts but no legal binding

this appears to be intended to continue allowing teams to conduct opaque buybacks and other open-market operations on their "non-security" tokens operate with an arms-length issuer, a wink-wink buyback program with no enforceability or transparency, and no disclosure regime

this is identical to the legal charade around governance tokens, designed to circumvent howey where "no reasonable investor would expect profit"

the notable exception is the a16z comment letter which actually attempts to address the core issues some tokens do look like investment contracts, regardless of formal definitions and legal rights should there be some investor protection and disclosure regime required?

comment letter by paradigm, multicoin, electric, and galaxy looking to enshrine wink-wink no-utility tokens as non-security tokens (pgs 2-4) note the focus on "explicit legal rights to financial interests" and a carveout for saying "not financial advice"