Reglering
SEC v Telegram: Hester Peirces avvikande åsikt förklarad
Lägg till Securities.io bland dina föredragna källor på Google
Kommissionär Hester M. Peirce från U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission höll ett anförande under Blockchain Week i Singapore som kraftigt kritiserade resultatet av SEC:s verkställande åtgärd mot Telegram. Hennes kommentarer följde domstolsbeslutet som förbjöd distribution av Telegrams tokens och den efterföljande förlikningen som återförde kapital till investerare och lade ner projektet.
Peirces avvikande åsikt är anmärkningsvärd, inte för att den ifrågasatte fakta i fallet, utan för att den utmanade den juridiska ramen som användes för att nå resultatet. År senare fortsätter hennes argument att informera debatter kring tokenlanseringar, sekundära marknader och gränserna för amerikansk jurisdiktion i en global kapitalmarknad.
Timeline of the Telegram Case
| February–mars 2018 | Telegram samlade in cirka $1.7 billion using SAFT agreements with accredited investors. |
| oktober 2019 | The SEC sought an emergency order to halt token distribution. |
| mars 2020 | The court barred distribution of tokens to all investors, U.S. and non-U.S. |
| juni 2020 | Telegram settled with the SEC, returned funds, paid a civil penalty, and abandoned the network. |
Why the Court Saw “One Single Scheme”
A central disagreement raised by Commissioner Peirce concerned the court’s treatment of Telegram’s fundraising and token distribution as a single, inseparable scheme. In her view, this approach erased an important distinction between:
- Investeringskontraktet som användes för att samla in kapital från ackrediterade investerare, och
- Token som skulle skapas och senare distribueras för användning i ett funktionellt nätverk.
Peirce argued that capital formation to build a network should not automatically taint a later token with perpetual securities status. Once a network is functional and a token has a consumptive use, she contended, secondary transfers should be evaluated independently under established securities law principles.
Distribution as a Requirement, Not a Violation
Another core issue raised in the dissent was the SEC’s view that widespread token distribution itself constituted an illegal securities offering. Peirce countered that broad distribution is not incidental, but essential, to the success of decentralized networks.
From a technical and economic perspective, a blockchain that cannot distribute tokens widely struggles to achieve security, utility, and resilience. Treating distribution as inherently suspect, she warned, risks making functional decentralization legally unattainable in the United States.
Jurisdiction and Global Reach
Peirce also questioned the scope of the relief sought and granted. Telegram was not a U.S. company, and the majority of investors and funds were non-U.S. Nevertheless, the injunction applied globally.
Her concern was not merely diplomatic. In a global capital market, expansive extraterritorial remedies can incentivize issuers to exclude U.S. participants entirely, reducing American influence over emerging financial infrastructure rather than strengthening it.
