We wrote about the legal attack on the NFT industry by the SEC, which in early September said that NFTs have the characteristics of a security asset, and therefore their circulation should be licensed. The SEC decided to try to prove this thesis on the example of a large NFT-exchange - OpenSea.
Two weeks later, we decided to return to the topic and collect in a small digest the statements of individuals and organizations in this regard.
Digital legal defense group Digital Chamber has urged cryptocurrency users in the U.S. to support a new bill that has already been dubbed the “NFT Act.”
Digital Chamber lawyers argue that many NFTs function similarly to works of art and traditional collectibles and should be treated as consumer goods rather than securities. In response to this call, William Timmons has introduced the “NFT Act” for Senate debate, which seeks to address the legal and regulatory regime for NFTs. If passed, it would make the SEC's allegations legally null and void.
Magic Eden's CEO welcomes “legal clarity” following the SEC's threat to OpenSea. In fact, his position seems to be that they are willing to acknowledge the SEC's claims against NFT, so are waiting for the onset of “legal clarity” after the outcome of the competitor's trial.
This article attempts a fresh analysis: what is the nature of the danger to NFT from the SEC's claims, as well as predictions of which NFT projects may be the first to suffer.
But the most interesting opinion on the matter comes from CEO Pudgy Penguins, who stated that he is not at all concerned about the actions taken by the SEC against the NFT industry. As far as we understood his remark, he is going to ignore any decisions of the SEC.