>When Yu Gi Oh is off the air and no one is advertising the toys and cards, are you really going to tell me demand will be unaffected? Children grow out of the toys, and new children will be marketed toys by OTHER groups that rise up after Yu Gi Oh. To say their efforts, expertise, advertising etc have no link to the demand for toys is a very dubious argument, some might even consider it preposterous.
I am actually saying that, yes - the value doesn't come from the current show, it comes from nostalgia, rarity and the drive to collect things. I'd bet that most people with Pokemon card collections, for example, do not currently watch the cartoon series.
>Yet the company behind Pokemon did all those things you mentioned — and it is in fact the exclusive rights holder to the IP
Yes, Nintendo, the Pokemon Company and its shareholders are engaged in common enterprise. Purchasers of Pokemon cards are not.
>Finally, using assets as security / collateral for debt doesn’t mean that the assets are investment contracts.
I didn't say it did. It was part of the argument that the company believed the coins had appreciating value. What about the rest of it? "promoted it as an investment opportunity, they acknowledged its growth aligned with their company and they encouraged people to hold on to the coins so that they would appreciate in value despite new issuances." Does the Pokemon Company do that?
So now you are claiming that people’s nostalgia drives the sales today now that the shows are (temporarily) off the air. And therefore it is not a security. And also the original sales while the shows were running were never a securities transaction.
I am not sure I buy that argument about the original sales of securiries, and the SEC and judge in the court might not either. In fact, the LBRY and Ripple cases both have the judges saying secondary sales later on are not securities transactions in the crypto case also, but the issue is whether the original ones were.
Because the nostalgia is only widespread BECAUSE of the efforts of Pokemon to promote their IP, including getting the TV show syndicated, telling the kids to “gotta catch en all”, so now when the kids grew up, they have nostalgia. And also the cards (some of which were explicitly bought for investment purposes and their rarity, like the rare / limited edition charizard or the rare Yu Gi Oh Exodia combination etc) are in circulation through an “ICO” - an initial card offering and subsequent offerings haha. At the time they were conducted, the “investors” were totally relying on the efforts of the IP holders to promote the cards and make the rare ones worth something, or combinations or collections worth something. So at that time they might have been buying an investment contract. Again, I am simply applying the SEC’s currently MADE arguments in the LBRY and Ripple cases, to trading cards!
By analogy, if a crypto company today sells NFTs with different properties and emphasizes their use only in battle, yet also has rare special edition NFTs, promotes them online for years through Telegram channels and metaverse ganes etc. then you’re claiming the SEC cannot prove any of those rare NFTs were purchased relying on the efforts of the promoter to make the game’s network effect grow to such an extent that it would increase the demand for the rare NFTs, even after the promotion efforts ended. The form of whether it’s a trading card or crypto shouldn’t matter, only the facts and circumstances matter.
And if a new TMNT movie comes out then sure, you could again claim that all the action figures and cards being sold are for consumptive use only. But the LBRY case explicitly said that there could have been people buying it for INVESTMENT purposes and therefore it sets a scary precedent for the crypto industry, that, if applied to those industries would make Pokemon and Yu Gi Oh cards just as much securities sales for that same reason. But SEC didnt take them to court or make arguments like that, because it exercised its discretion to not bring suit. That’s what government agencies do. When Obama said he would direct ICE to deprioritize DACA cases, that’s what he was talking about. Or when police see a Police Benevolent Association card for a minor offense. The government selectively enforcing things is common.
> Does the Pokemon Company do that?
You mean the company that puts the phrase “gotta catch em all!” everywhere including its shows and jingles? It certainly encourages “collecting them all”. This is what happens when you do:
> LBRY had other functions that made the coins look more like securities. For example, they used LBC as security for debt
======= DIFFERENT QUESTIONS
Just out of curiosity, if you still think the original sales are not securities, would you also be just as optimistic with regard to allowing the people to play games and do battles on a smart contract to win actual ETH? Would this violate the FTC’s restrictions on lotteries? Would you say it is a lottery because there is an element of chance when you get a random card? Or a game of skill because a karebo used properly can defeat a blue eyes white dragon? And is a company putting up prize money on the blockchain enough to satisfy the bonding requirements if it is a contest / game of skill instead of a game of chance?
And how about deploying a smart contract allowing people to wager ETH and then have it go to one or more winners based on some on-chain battles or rules which are primarily based on skill? (Nevermind that an AI could trivially try all the combinations to give an unfair advantage).
I am actually saying that, yes - the value doesn't come from the current show, it comes from nostalgia, rarity and the drive to collect things. I'd bet that most people with Pokemon card collections, for example, do not currently watch the cartoon series.
>Yet the company behind Pokemon did all those things you mentioned — and it is in fact the exclusive rights holder to the IP
Yes, Nintendo, the Pokemon Company and its shareholders are engaged in common enterprise. Purchasers of Pokemon cards are not.
>Finally, using assets as security / collateral for debt doesn’t mean that the assets are investment contracts.
I didn't say it did. It was part of the argument that the company believed the coins had appreciating value. What about the rest of it? "promoted it as an investment opportunity, they acknowledged its growth aligned with their company and they encouraged people to hold on to the coins so that they would appreciate in value despite new issuances." Does the Pokemon Company do that?