How to Form a Washington Corporation

[Update: the Washington legislature updated RCW 23B in 2020.  This post, Washington Corporation, is out of date in some respects and was updated here.]

Introduction

If you are going to form a Washington corporation, you need to exercise care and you probably want to hire a lawyer to help you. The reason for this is that Washington corporate law does not have the default settings that you probably want for your startup company. To get the settings you want, you have to specifically include certain provisions in your Articles of Incorporation, which you file with the Secretary of State to create the corporation, or your new company will not be set up right.

If you use the standard form of Articles of Incorporation provided by the Secretary of State on its website (and potentially other services that help you form companies), you will not get what you want, and when you hire a law firm to help you, they will tell you that you have to amend and restate your documents. There might be other problems as well, which you would rather just avoid entirely.

So watch out when you create a new corporation in Washington. If you want to set up the company for growth, hire an attorney to help you who knows Washington corporate law.

What you need to watch out for

With that in mind, the Washington law provisions you want to make sure you include in your Articles are the following:

1) Getting rid of statutory preemptive rights

Under Washington law, if you don’t say anything in your Articles about preemptive rights, all of your shareholders will have the right to buy shares in your corporation when you issue additional shares (subject to just a few limited carveouts). Here is what the statute says:

(1) Unless the articles of incorporation provide otherwise, and subject to the limitations in subsections (3) and (4) of this section, the shareholders of a corporation have a preemptive right, granted on uniform terms and conditions prescribed by the board of directors to provide a fair and reasonable opportunity to exercise the right, to acquire proportional amounts of the corporation’s unissued shares upon the decision of the board of directors to issue them.

This is problematic for a bunch of different reasons. What if you want to raise a venture funding? Or an angel round? What if you want to issue equity to your employees or independent contractors, or members of your board? You do not want the be bound up, and unable to raise money, because you haven’t included the right provision in your Articles.

For this reason, you want to be careful when you form your Washington corporation to specifically override this default setting.

2) Allowing the shareholders to act by less than unanimous written consent

You want to be able for the shareholders to act without having a formal meeting other than unanimously. If you want to have the shareholders approve an increase in your stock option plan share reserve, for example, you want to be able to get this done by simply circulating a written consent, and you want that consent to be effective as soon as a majority of the shareholders sign it.

Under Washington corporate law, the shareholders cannot act by less than unanimous written consent unless you specifically include a provision to that effect in the company’s Articles of Incorporation. RCW 23B.07.040.

It is not good enough to include this provision in the company’s Bylaws. The provision won’t have any effect if it only appears in the company’s bylaws. So, if you form your company using the Articles of Incorporation provided on the Washington Secretary of State web site you will have missed this.

3) Opting out of cumulative voting

Under Washington law, unless you say something to the contrary in your Articles, your corporation will have what is called “cumulative voting.” RCW 23B.07.280.

Cumulative voting means when the shareholders are voting to elect directors, the shareholders can cumulate all of their votes across all of the director candidates and cast all of those votes for 1 director.

Here is how the statute describes it: “(1) Unless otherwise provided in the articles of incorporation, shareholders entitled to vote at any election of directors are entitled to cumulate votes by multiplying the number of votes they are entitled to cast by the number of directors for whom they are entitled to vote and to cast the product for a single candidate or distribute the product among two or more candidates.”

Let me give you an example.

Suppose you have 1,000 shares of common stock. At the annual shareholder meeting, the shareholders are going to vote on 3 different directors. If you have cumulative voting in your charter, instead of casting 1,000 votes for each of the 3 different director position, you can cumulate your 3,000 votes and cast them for 1 of the director positions.

Cumulative voting is designed to help minority shareholders get a voice in corporate governance. But for growth companies, it is never done this way. You do not want cumulative voting. You need to include a specific provision in your charter blotting this out.

4) Reducing Approvals Required to a Simple Majority

Under Washington law, the default is that 2/3rds of the shareholders have to approve things like a sale of the company. The default setting in Delaware is a simple majority. We generally recommend, in your Articles, reducing the approvals required to a simple majority.

Conclusion

If you are looking to start a corporation in Washington, doing it right the first time will save you money, time, and a lot of headache down the road. Pay close attention to the details, sweat the small stuff, and be one of the fortunate few who doesn’t have to call an attorney a few months down the road because they weren’t aware of the changes we recommend above.

By: Joseph Wallin and James Graves 

Repricing Stock Options: The Rule 701 Math

By: James Graves and Joe Wallin

There may be times during the life of your company in which you will want to reprice underwater stock options. Depending on your cap table, however, this may not be as easy as you think.

As you know, Rule 701 sets forth mathematical limitations you must follow when issuing shares under the rule. If you want to reprice your options, you have to be aware of the fact that C&DI 271.10 requires a company that is repricing their options to count them as new grants/sales under Rule 701 as of the date of the repricing. C&DI 271.10 states:

Question: Within 12 months of an original option grant, the issuer reprices the option grant at a lower exercise price, which, in turn, lowers the aggregate sales price or amount of securities sold during the 12-month period. May the issuer exclude the original grant in determining the amount of securities that may be sold and whether it has an obligation under Rule 701 to deliver the additional disclosure called for when its issuance level exceeds $5 million?

Answer: Yes, but the issuer must count the repriced options as a new sale, and include them in determining its aggregate sales price or amount of securities sold within any consecutive 12-month period that includes the repricing date. [Jan. 26, 2009]

https://www.sec.gov/divisions/corpfin/guidance/securitiesactrules-interps.htm

This means that you can hit any of the three mathematical limitations in Rule 701 without issuing a single new option.

An example

Here’s an example. Typically, a growing company that is outside of its initial stages, but without a huge amount of assets, will rely on the 15% of shares test, test number three. Say this company wants to reprice all of their options outstanding, which are 10,000,000. The Company sold 15,000,000 shares of common stock, sold 15,000,000 shares of preferred stock in their Series A round, 10,000,000 shares of preferred stock in their Series B round, and have 5,000,000 warrants for common stock outstanding.

Under the guidance set forth in Rule 701(d)(3)(iii), all of these shares of outstanding stock are to be included in the sum. What can be confusing at times is the inclusion of the preferred stock. This is included because it is most often convertible into common stock. The rule states:

In calculating outstanding securities for purposes of paragraph (d)(2)(iii) of this section, treat the securities underlying all currently exercisable or convertible options, warrants, rights or other securities, other than those issued under this exemption, as outstanding.

Per the rule, the sum of these outstanding stock x .15 must be greater than or equal to the amount of options they wish to reprice, which in this example is 10,000,000 options.

So, (15,000,000 + 15,000,000 + 10,000,000 + 5,000,000) x.15 = 6,750,000.

Therefore, in this example, the Company is out of compliance with Rule 701 even though it has not issued a single new option. If you are going to reprice options, make sure to consider the Rule 701 mathematical limitations.

(On a different note, the SEC’s Advisory Committee on Small and Emerging Companies has recommended that the Rule 701 “hard cap” be eliminated. We couldn’t agree more.)

IP Assignments & Confidentiality Agreements

My colleague Susan Schalla and I put together the below video chat on IP assignments and confidentiality agreements for Founders Live. If you haven’t checked out Founders Live, check it out at https://founderslive.mn.co/.

Carney Badley Spellman is about Advocacy, Strategy, Results. Located in Seattle, we are a full-service law firm committed to exceptional client service and professional excellence. Our firm serves individuals, professionals, entrepreneurs, educators, closely-held or family businesses, franchises, Fortune 500 corporations, and insurance companies.  They are in the private sector, public sector, and governments.  Our clients are forward thinkers, creative, collaborative, and deliver high-quality products and business services to their markets.  Their markets extend into almost every industry including, food and beverage, retail, professional services, arts, health care, education, manufacturing, technology, construction, real estate, and more.  We advocate for our clients.  We strategize with them to meet their goals.

By Joe Wallin & Susan Schalla

For more related articles about IP Assignments & Confidentiality Agreements, please visit our website, here

SEC Guidance on Crypto

If you are interested in how the SEC is thinking about crypto tokens as securities, we recommend you watch William Hinman’s recent speech and read its transcript. We’ve included an embed and a link to the speech below.

We think perhaps the most important and interesting part was this:

But this also points the way to when a digital asset transaction may no longer represent a security offering. If the network on which the token or coin is to function is sufficiently decentralized – where purchasers would no longer reasonably expect a person or group to carry out essential managerial or entrepreneurial efforts – the assets may not represent an investment contract. Moreover, when the efforts of the third party are no longer a key factor for determining the enterprise’s success, material information asymmetries recede. As a network becomes truly decentralized, the ability to identify an issuer or promoter to make the requisite disclosures becomes difficult, and less meaningful.

https://www.sec.gov/news/speech/speech-hinman-061418

 

For more related articles on topics such as crypto, please visit our website here.

Carney Badley Spellman is about Advocacy, Strategy, Results. Located in Seattle, we are a full-service law firm committed to exceptional client service and professional excellence. Our firm serves individuals, professionals, entrepreneurs, educators, closely-held or family businesses, franchises, Fortune 500 corporations, and insurance companies.  They are in the private sector, public sector, and governments.  Our clients are forward thinkers, creative, collaborative, and deliver high-quality products and business services to their markets.  Their markets extend into almost every industry including, food and beverage, retail, professional services, arts, health care, education, manufacturing, technology, construction, real estate, and more.  We advocate for our clients.  We strategize with them to meet their goals.

Equity Crowdfunding Video Chat

My colleague Danny Neuman and I put together this video about equity crowdfunding for an AMA on Nick Hughes’ Founders Live group.

Equity crowdfunding can proceed along a number of different pathways, including:

  • Rule 506(c)
  • Title III
  • State equity crowdfunding laws
  • Regulation A+

If you want to raise money through an equity crowdfunding, we would be happy to talk to you about the various pathways, the amounts you can raise under each approach, the various complications and expected costs of each approach.

Carney Badley Spellman is about Advocacy, Strategy, Results. Located in Seattle, we are a full-service law firm committed to exceptional client service and professional excellence. Our firm serves individuals, professionals, entrepreneurs, educators, closely-held or family businesses, franchises, Fortune 500 corporations, and insurance companies.  They are in the private sector, public sector, and governments.  Our clients are forward thinkers, creative, collaborative, and deliver high-quality products and business services to their markets.  Their markets extend into almost every industry including, food and beverage, retail, professional services, arts, health care, education, manufacturing, technology, construction, real estate, and more.  We advocate for our clients.  We strategize with them to meet their goals.

 

For more related articles or videos, about topics such as equity crowdfunding, please visit our website, here.

Taxation of Stock Options: Senate Bill Update

Taxation of Stock Options

As of now, the Senate has abandoned the idea of taxing stock options as they vest.

This is the modification to the mark, released late yesterday.

https://www.finance.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/11.14.17%20Chairman’s%20Modified%20Mark.pdfhttps://www.finance.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/11.14.17%20Chairman’s%20Modified%20Mark.pdf

The modification strikes the proposal–Item III.H.1, Nonqualified deferred compensation–from the Chairman’s Mark.  A new discussion of Treatment of Qualified Equity Grants begins on p. 69.

The new proposal includes does a complete u-turn from what was originally proposed.

By Joe Wallin – The Startup Law Blog

Carney Badley Spellman is about Advocacy, Strategy, Results. Located in Seattle, we are a full-service law firm committed to exceptional client service and professional excellence. Our firm serves individuals, professionals, entrepreneurs, educators, closely-held or family businesses, franchises, Fortune 500 corporations, and insurance companies.  They are in the private sector, public sector, and governments.  Our clients are forward thinkers, creative, collaborative, and deliver high-quality products and business services to their markets.  Their markets extend into almost every industry including, food and beverage, retail, professional services, arts, health care, education, manufacturing, technology, construction, real estate, and more.  We advocate for our clients.  We strategize with them to meet their goals.

For more related articles or videos, about topics such as Taxation of Stock Options, please visit our website, here.

Stock Option Taxation: The Senate’s Tax Bill

Stock option taxation is a sensitive issue in startup land. Fred Wilson recently sounded the alarm about the Senate’s proposal to tax stock options as they vest. TechCrunch has also written about this.

Right now, what we have to work with is the DESCRIPTION OF THE CHAIRMAN’S MARK OF THE “TAX CUTS AND JOBS ACT”.

The document lays out the proposal as follows:

Under the proposal, any compensation deferred under a nonqualified deferred compensation plan is includible in the gross income of the service provider when there is no substantial risk of forfeiture of the service provider’s rights to such compensation. For this purpose, the rights of a service provider to compensation are treated as subject to a substantial risk of forfeiture only if the rights are conditioned on the future performance of substantial services by any individual. Under the proposal, a condition related to a purpose of the compensation other than the future performance of substantial services (such as a condition based on achieving a specified performance goal or a condition intended in whole or in part to defer taxation) does not create a substantial risk of forfeiture, regardless of whether the possibility of forfeiture is substantial. In addition, a covenant not to compete does not create a substantial risk of forfeiture.

What is interesting about this is it runs completely counter to how the world works today. Today, if you grant stock options at fair market value, there is no tax to the optionee upon receipt. Nor is there tax on vesting. But the new rule proposes taxing on vesting. This is distressing.

Incentive Stock Options Carved Out

There is some good news here. Apparently “statutory options” would not trigger this new rule. See below. Only nonqualified stock options would be problematic.

The proposal applies to all stock options and SARs (and similar arrangements involving noncorporate entities), regardless of how the exercise price compares to the value of the related stock on the date the option or SAR is granted. It is intended that no exceptions are to be provided in regulations or other administrative guidance. However, it is intended that statutory options are not considered nonqualified deferred compensation for purposes of the proposal.

It will be interesting to see what happens here.

A Better Idea

My proposal would be: Congress should make it easier for companies to share equity with workers. I don’t believe service providers should be taxed at all when they receive stock in a private company. The stock can’t be sold, and generally must be held indefinitely.

If the Congress passed a sensible law, which said that service providers would not be taxed on the receipt of equity of their employer if not a registered security that was freely tradeable, equity sharing would flourish, and the wealth created by startup companies would be more widely shared. This would be good for our economy and our politics.

Founder Tax Issues

In this video, we talk about founder tax issues, primarily:

  1. The 83(b) election — when it applies; when it doesn’t; when it is due; etc.
  2. Qualified Small Business Stock considerations in choosing what type of business entity to form.

We hope you enjoy the video.

My colleague Susan Schalla and I have been making videos for Nick Hughes’ Founders Live Group, followed by AMA chat sessions.

Carney Badley Spellman is about Advocacy, Strategy, Results. Located in Seattle, we are a full-service law firm committed to exceptional client service and professional excellence. Our firm serves individuals, professionals, entrepreneurs, educators, closely-held or family businesses, franchises, Fortune 500 corporations, and insurance companies.  They are in the private sector, public sector, and governments.  Our clients are forward thinkers, creative, collaborative, and deliver high-quality products and business services to their markets.  Their markets extend into almost every industry including, food and beverage, retail, professional services, arts, health care, education, manufacturing, technology, construction, real estate, and more.  We advocate for our clients.  We strategize with them to meet their goals.

By Joe Wallin

For more related articles about Founder Tax Issues, please visit our website, here.

If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to reach out to me via email in the links above.

Federal Research Tax Credits for Startups

Guest Post By Dan Wright

Federal Research Tax Credits

Is your business involved in creating intellectual property or process and product improvement? If so, you or your business may qualify for federal research tax credits.

Common Misconceptions

First, let’s clear up some myths about what business activity qualifies for the credit. Many people think of white coats and test tubes when they hear the word “research.” However, in this context, the definition is much broader than that.

Another common misconception is that the research, or resulting products, must be completely original to qualify. However, that is not generally the case. Instead, qualifying research very often involves research that results in a product or process that is only new to the business performing the research. That fact that similar products or research may already exist is not relevant to qualifying your business activity.

What is the Credit Based On?

The credit is a wage-based program, which you can calculate by identifying the wages paid to employees who perform qualified research activities. Amounts paid to outside consultants are also included in the credit at 65% of each qualifying dollar spent. In some cases, supplies that are consumed in the research process can also be included in the calculation.

Multiple methods of calculating the credit may be available. But in short, the credit available to the qualifying business activity equates to 6%-20% percent of the incremental research expenses. The exact percentage is determined by the elected applicable method.

Who Qualifies for the Credit?

Any business performing qualifying research can qualify for the benefit. Since the incentive is in the form of a tax “credit,” the business must have a tax liability to get a current cash benefit. It is not a refundable credit, but the portion of a credit that is not used in the year it is generated can be carried forward.

Since regular corporations are subject to federal tax, they can claim the credit. Businesses that are considered “pass-through” entities for federal income tax purposes, such as LLCs that have elected partnership status and corporations (or LLCs) that have elected S corporation status, pass the credit through to the owners of the entity.

What Qualifies as Research Activity?

Only business activity conducted in the U.S. qualifies. Further, the research activity must be  “technological in nature.” This means that it must involve a hard science, such as computer software; engineering; medical, biological, or physical research; or other similar science disciplines.

Additionally, “funded research” does not typically qualify. This means that if research activity is funded by an outside source, such as grants or customers, the arrangement must be carefully evaluated to determine if it qualifies. That said, the fact that the research is partially or wholly funded by third parties does not automatically disqualify the activity.

What Activities do not Qualify?

The rules specify which business activities are disqualified. These activities include:

  • Costs incurred once production of the component begins;
  • Adaptation of an existing component to a particular customer’s requirement or need;
  • Efficiency surveys;
  • Activity related to management function/technique;
  • Marketing research;
  • Advertising or promotions;
  • Routine data collection/testing to evaluate quality control;
  • Activity related to style, taste, cosmetic or seasonal design factors.

New  Opportunities that Apply to 2016 and Beyond

Alternative Minimum Tax (“AMT”) Offset

Until 2016, the credit could only be used to reduce a regular tax liability. Beginning in 2016, however, it can also be used to offset AMT liabilities. The AMT offset is only available to businesses with under $50 million in gross receipts. However, credits passing through from qualifying businesses can still apply to individual tax liabilities.

Payroll Tax Election

Beginning in 2016, qualified startup businesses can generate research credits. Qualified startup businesses include those that have not had “gross receipts” for more than 5 years (meaning, the five year test starts with the first year in which business had gross receipts), and have had gross receipts of less than $5 million in the claim year. Research credits can then be used to offset the employer’s portion of the FICA tax in the following year. It’s worth noting, however, that startups should consider the related party rules when applying the gross receipts tests.

Since many startup businesses don’t generate taxable income in the early years after formation, the credit program historically provided little, if any, immediate benefit. Now that the credit can be used to offset payroll taxes, the credit has real value for qualifying startups.

Questions?

If you would like help determining if your business activity qualifies for the research credit incentives, and/or determining an estimate of the benefit, please contact Dan Wright at dwright@clarknuber.com.

Token Sales & The Risk Capital Test

By Evan Jensen and Joe Wallin and Jordan Rood

If you are considering token sales and selling blockchain tokens in the U.S., you not only have to worry about the U.S. federal securities laws (see the latest from the SEC here), but also the laws of each state within the U.S. in which you sell the tokens.

Token Sales

Worrying about both federal and state law is something that happens whenever you offer to issue a security unless the federal law specifically preempts the state securities laws. Specific federal exemption occurs in very limited circumstances.

For example, if you are selling tokens to California and Washington residents, you have to worry about California and Washington state securities laws.

An example of federal preemption occurs under Rule 506(b). If you sell securities to only accredited investors under Rule 506(b), state law is preempted except for the requirement to file a Form D and pay the filing fees in states in which you have investors that require the filing.

In general though, the state securities laws exist side by side with the federal law and you have to comply with both. For example, if you issue stock options you have to comply with both federal and state law.

It is possible a token will not be a security under the federal securities law, but will be a security under a particular state’s laws. This could make your coin offering, if you are considering one in which you sell coins to US residents, more difficult than you might expect.

What is the Risk Capital Test?

The risk capital test is a test some jurisdictions apply to determine whether in a particular transaction the instrument offered is a security. This test is different, and arguably more expansive, than the Howey test used by the SEC in its analysis finding that the DAO tokens qualified as securities. Further, each of the approximately 16 states that apply a risk capital analysis characterize it a bit differently, but there are common elements among them.

In Washington State, for example, the statutory definition of “security” includes this concept:

“investment of money or other consideration in the risk capital of a venture with the expectation of some valuable benefit to the investor where the investor does not receive the right to exercise practical and actual control over the managerial decisions of the venture”

The Full Statutory Definition of Security in Washington State

Below is the full statutory definition of a security in Washington State, RCW 21.20.005(17)(a):

(17)(a) “Security” means any note; stock; treasury stock; bond; debenture; evidence of indebtedness; certificate of interest or participation in any profit-sharing agreement; collateral-trust certificate; preorganization certificate or subscription; transferable share; investment contract; investment of money or other consideration in the risk capital of a venture with the expectation of some valuable benefit to the investor where the investor does not receive the right to exercise practical and actual control over the managerial decisions of the venture; voting-trust certificate; certificate of deposit for a security; fractional undivided interest in an oil, gas, or mineral lease or in payments out of production under a lease, right, or royalty; charitable gift annuity; any put, call, straddle, option, or privilege on any security, certificate of deposit, or group or index of securities, including any interest therein or based on the value thereof; or any put, call, straddle, option, or privilege entered into on a national securities exchange relating to foreign currency; or, in general, any interest or instrument commonly known as a “security,” or any certificate of interest or participation in, temporary or interim certificate for, receipt for, guarantee of, or warrant or right to subscribe to or purchase, any security under this subsection. This subsection applies whether or not the security is evidenced by a written document.

Practical Application of the Risk Capital Test

If you are buying a blockchain token, you are investing money or other consideration into something. Are you investing it in the “risk capital” of a “venture with the expectation of some valuable benefit where you do not receive the right to exercise practical and actual control over the managerial decisions of the venture”?

It all depends on what the the terms of the token offering.

If the offering white paper tells you that you might expect some benefit from the increase in the value of the token being sold, does that mean the token is by definition a security under Washington law?

If you are buying a token for access to a computer network or software that doesn’t yet exist, or exists but only in an early state, and your capital is “at risk” because it is going to be used to further develop the software, then there is a risk that you are selling a security under state law, even if the token is not a security under federal law.

One of the most famous cases in this area involved a country club to be built with membership funds.

[As an aside: we thing it is interesting and illuminating from a socialogical point of view that 30 years ago we were talking about whether memberships to clubs were securities and now we are taking about whether blockchain tokens are securities]

In the old, somewhat famous case re golf club memberships, the promoters hadn’t built the club, but were selling memberships to build the club. The California Supreme Court held that this was a security under at risk test, even though the memberships only entitled the purchasers to use the club once it was built. They weren’t entitled to a share of the profits of the club.

The case is worth reading when thinking about what is a security under states law for states who have adopted the risk capital test.

The analogy with a blockchain token sale is quite clear- even if the token is a software access token, a utility token, etc., if it is being offered far in advance of the service, and the funds raised from the sale of the token are usedto build the service (the “club”) then the purchaser’s capital is in a sense being put at risk. And no matter how promising the project, arguably the person purchasing the token is in danger of never receiving the promised service. The valuable benefit, in such a case, would be the future service being provided, likely coupled with an increase in the value of the token as it changes from a future value to an immediate value. An access token being sold to raise money to build a software platform may be fine under the federal Howey test, but nevertheless certain states may consider it to be a security.

Contrast this with a token being offered where the service is immediately available. A software service might restrict usage using a permission/license token rather than a serial number, as is common with software products like Microsoft Office. Or perhaps a usage currency could provide a limited amount of access which is consumed when the user performs actions or acquires content.

Probably the easiest example of a type of token that could be sold that would not be a security would be a token that entitles you to play a video game that is already built. It is hard to see how that would be a security. It is no different than selling the rights to play a video game for cash. The service being provided is an entertainment software product, handed over immediately when the user purchases the token. This could take one of several different forms, such as the popular free-to-play model using a cryptocurrency instead of a platform-specific virtual currency (i.e. Riot Points, World of Tanks gold). It could be a token representing ownership of a digital game product, or DLC content within a game. Or, it could take the form of a token credit inserted to play a specific game once, in the fashion of an old-school arcade machine.

The important detail here is that in each of these cases the connection between the token and actually playing the game is immediate- the user is purchasing and receiving the product immediately, rather than an expectation of a future value as a consequence of a contribution of risk capital.

Still, what if a token features a mixture of characteristics? What if there are two or more types of tokens which are connected to one another or related to one another in some way- even if one of the tokens does not have an expectation of profit, perhaps a combination of tokens and/or smart contracts could create an expectation in the purchaser that a token will eventually return a profit. And how far in advance of the service being available is too far?

Again, the larger point to token issuers is—and this is somewhat of an understatement–issuing a token is not the easiest thing in the world to do, from a legal and regulatory compliance point of view. As a general takeaway, a simple tactic to avoid this “risk capital” issue is to just avoid issuing tokens to residents of those particular states applying the rule, but otherwise, structuring the tokens to reflect a (relatively) immediate consumable benefit, rather than a speculative future one, is a way to reduce the likelihood that tokens would be deemed securities under the risk capital test.
Disclaimer: This blog post is for information purposes only. It doesn’t constitute legal advice or the establishment of an attorney-client relationship. Always consult with counsel before attempting to sell anything that might be a security.