(800) 341-2684

Call Toll Free

Contact us

Online Inquiries 24/7

Non-Fungible Tokens

Anthony L.G., PLLC Securities Law Firm

This one has been on my list for a while and I’m finally ready to dive in – non-fungible tokens (NFTs).  In July 2017, the world of digital assets and cryptocurrency literally became an overnight business sector for corporate and securities lawyers, shifting from the pure technology sector, when the SEC issued its Section 21(a) Report on the DAO investigation finding that a cryptocurrency is, in most cases, a security HERE.  The SEC’s Section 21(a) Report relied on the analysis in SEC v. W.J. Howey Co. to determine when a crypto is a security, building the guardrails to conclude that all, or almost all, cryptocurrencies at that time were/are indeed a security.  For more on the Howey analysis, see HERE.

Later in June 2018, the SEC gave some relief to the crypto world by announcing that Bitcoin and Ether were likely decentralized enough as to no longer be considered a security, hedging on the conclusion as to whether they were once considered such.

Using the same analysis as a backdrop, in March 2018, the SEC issued a public statement directed specifically to online platforms for the trading of digital assets/cryptocurrencies.  The statement served as a dual caution to investors and warning to platforms.  In essence, if a platform offers trading of digital assets that are securities and operates as an “exchange,” as defined by the federal securities laws, then the platform must register with the SEC as a national securities exchange or be exempt from registration (see HERE).

In April 2019, the SEC’s Division of Corporation Finance published a “Framework for Investment Contract Analysis of Digital Assets,” issued a no-action letter to Turnkey Jet, Inc. and made a statement on both. Although the guidance was appreciated, it really offered nothing new or different about the analysis, which was firmly based on SEC v. W.J. Howey Co. (the “Howey Test”) (see HERE).  Other than the Section 21(a) Report and this guidance, the world of crypto regulation has been enforcement-driven.

Even accepting that a cryptocurrency is a security and trying to comply with the federal securities laws has been a difficult task.  Since the issuance of cryptocurrencies, by nature and function, would involve general information and gun-jumping, a traditional IPO with S-1 would not work, not to mention the plethora of custody issues for any broker-dealer willing to act as an underwriter.  See here for more information on broker-dealer custody issues related to digital assets – HERE.  Traditional exempt offerings would also not work – a distribution of cryptocurrencies is never limited to accredited investors.

That leaves Regulation A; however, the process of completing the offering circular with the SEC is a large task.  Blockstack was the first back in 2019 to qualify an offering circular for the issuance of a full token with properties of what could be a utility token.  Others have followed and the process does seem to be gaining in popularity.

During these last few years while market participants and professionals have been navigating the securities laws related to cryptocurrencies (generally by avoiding the U.S. altogether), a whole new breed of digital assets have surfaced, including what may very well be the most powerful digital asset of them all, the non-fungible token or NFT.


NFTs use blockchain technology to establish authenticity, ownership and transferability of unique assets such as works of art, digital collectibles, music or land ownership in the metaverse.  NFTs can be purchased and sold on peer-to-peer platforms using digital assets wallets.  Famously, Mike Winkelmann (a.k.a., Beeple) sold an NFT digital piece of art for $69 million.  The sale was the third-highest price paid for a piece of art by a living artist.  It is estimated that collectors, traders, investors and speculators have spent over $40 billion dollars on NFTs to date.

The NFT market continues to explode, even though the owner of an NFT often doesn’t own the original piece of art, music, etc., only the digital marker that points to it. The idea has been touted for its potential to represent shares of a company or act as in-game currency for video games.

Unlike cryptocurrencies and ICOs, the SEC has not issued any guidance or interpretations on NFTs.  Likewise, as of the date of this blog, the SEC has not initiated any NFT-related enforcement actions.  It could be that an NFT, unless coupled with more, such as equity ownership, royalty or revenue rights, simply does not meet the definition of a security.

The Howey Test defines an investment contract as follows:

“… an investment contract for purposes of the Securities Act means a contract, transaction or scheme whereby a person invests his money in a common enterprise and is led to expect profits solely from the efforts of the promoter or a third party….”

To further break down the analysis, Howey established a four-part test.  In particular, an investment contract exists where there is:

(i) An investment of money – Although in Howey the term “money” was used, subsequent case law has expanded this concept to include any form of consideration with value.

(ii) In a common enterprise – The subsequent court cases are not consistent regarding the meaning of a “common enterprise.”  The majority of federal courts define a common enterprise as involving “horizontal commonality,” which involves the pooling of money or assets from multiple investors whereby the investors share in the profits and risk in some proportion.

However, another group of federal courts define a common enterprise as involving “vertical commonality,” which focuses on the relationship of the parties.  In vertical commonality, the investor’s profit or loss is subject to the efforts of the promoter putting together the deal, regardless of the existence or status of other investors.  Vertical commonality can further be broken down into “broad vertical commonality” whereby the promoter’s profits are not tied to the investor’s profits, and “narrow vertical commonality” whereby the promoter only profits if the investor profits.

The bottom line is that if a commonality of enterprise is found, regardless of the form it has taken, this factor in the test will be satisfied.

(iii) With an expectation of profits – Profits can either be in the form of capital appreciation, cash return on investment or other earnings (including dividends or interest).  Profits, for purposes of the Howey Test, refers particularly to a return to the investor and not necessarily the success of the enterprise as a whole.  A Ponzi scheme clearly involves a security, even though the enterprise itself is designed to be a failure.

(iv) Which are derived solely from the efforts of the promoters or third parties – The efforts of the promoter(s) or third party(ies) must be undeniably significant in the success or failure of the enterprise.

Applying the Howey Test, courts have interpreted a security to include such diverse items as citrus groves, cryptocurrencies, warehouse receipts, chinchillas, minks, diamonds, bullion, pay phones, real estate and equipment, and condominium units, when they were offered or sold under circumstances involving the investment of money and expectation of a return through the efforts of others.

Directly related to digital assets, the SEC has focused on whether the purchaser has a reasonable expectation of profits (or other financial return) derived from the efforts of others.  A purchaser may expect to realize a return through participating in distributions or through other methods of realizing appreciation on the assets, such as selling at a gain in the secondary market.

An NFT itself is managed by the owner and any profits derived would come from the re-sale of that unique asset and price appreciation resulting solely from external market forces impacting supply and demand, are not considered profits under the Howey test.  Even if a particular NFT launch involves 5,000 variations of the same image (kitties, for example), once sold, there is no expectation of any future common efforts and ongoing relationship with the promoter.  If an NFT relates to an existing asset and is marketed as a collectible with a public assurance of authenticity on the blockchain, it should not be deemed a security.

However, if NFTs are fractionalized, then a person is selling an item that they maintain management control over.  In that case, the NFT starts to look a lot more like a security.  Also, of course if NFTs carry rights such as equitable ownership, profit sharing, royalties, etc., they could firmly be considered a security.

Moreover, if NFTs are consistently used for deceptive practices, it becomes more and more likely that a regulator will find a way to bring them within their jurisdiction.  That regulator may be the SEC, but it also could be the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) or even the Treasury Department.

If an NFT is determined to be a security, then the platform facilitating the sale and secondary trading of the NFT would have to register with the SEC.

In addition to securities law matters, NFTs can implicate commodities laws, intellectual property laws (copyright, trademark and patent), banking laws (AML, etc.), state laws, and cybersecurity matters.

The Author

Laura Anthony, Esq.
Founding Partner
Anthony L.G., PLLC
A Corporate Law Firm

Securities attorney Laura Anthony and her experienced legal team provide ongoing corporate counsel to small and mid-size private companies, OTC and exchange traded public companies as well as private companies going public on the Nasdaq, NYSE American or over-the-counter market, such as the OTCQB and OTCQX. For more than two decades Anthony L.G., PLLC has served clients providing fast, personalized, cutting-edge legal service.  The firm’s reputation and relationships provide invaluable resources to clients including introductions to investment bankers, broker-dealers, institutional investors and other strategic alliances. The firm’s focus includes, but is not limited to, compliance with the Securities Act of 1933 offer sale and registration requirements, including private placement transactions under Regulation D and Regulation S and PIPE Transactions, securities token offerings and initial coin offerings, Regulation A/A+ offerings, as well as registration statements on Forms S-1, S-3, S-8 and merger registrations on Form S-4; compliance with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, including registration on Form 10, reporting on Forms 10-Q, 10-K and 8-K, and 14C Information and 14A Proxy Statements; all forms of going public transactions; mergers and acquisitions including both reverse mergers and forward mergers; applications to and compliance with the corporate governance requirements of securities exchanges including Nasdaq and NYSE American; general corporate; and general contract and business transactions. Ms. Anthony and her firm represent both target and acquiring companies in merger and acquisition transactions, including the preparation of transaction documents such as merger agreements, share exchange agreements, stock purchase agreements, asset purchase agreements and reorganization agreements. The ALG legal team assists Pubcos in complying with the requirements of federal and state securities laws and SROs such as FINRA for 15c2-11 applications, corporate name changes, reverse and forward splits and changes of domicile. Ms. Anthony is also the author of SecuritiesLawBlog.com, the small-cap and middle market’s top source for industry news, and the producer and host of LawCast.com, Corporate Finance in Focus. In addition to many other major metropolitan areas, the firm currently represents clients in New York, Los Angeles, Miami, Boca Raton, West Palm Beach, Atlanta, Phoenix, Scottsdale, Charlotte, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Washington, D.C., Denver, Tampa, Detroit and Dallas.

Ms. Anthony is a member of various professional organizations including the Crowdfunding Professional Association (CfPA), Palm Beach County Bar Association, the Florida Bar Association, the American Bar Association and the ABA committees on Federal Securities Regulations and Private Equity and Venture Capital. She is a supporter of several community charities including siting on the board of directors of the American Red Cross for Palm Beach and Martin Counties, and providing financial support to the Susan Komen Foundation, Opportunity, Inc., New Hope Charities, the Society of the Four Arts, the Norton Museum of Art, Palm Beach County Zoo Society, the Kravis Center for the Performing Arts and several others. She is also a financial and hands-on supporter of Palm Beach Day Academy, one of Palm Beach’s oldest and most respected educational institutions. She currently resides in Palm Beach with her husband and daughter.

Ms. Anthony is an honors graduate from Florida State University College of Law and has been practicing law since 1993.

Contact Anthony L.G., PLLC. Inquiries of a technical nature are always encouraged.

Follow Anthony L.G., PLLC on Facebook, LinkedIn, YouTube, Pinterest and Twitter.

Listen to our podcast on iTunes Podcast channel.



Lawcast is derived from the term podcast and specifically refers to a series of news segments that explain the technical aspects of corporate finance and securities law. The accepted interpretation of lawcast is most commonly used when referring to LawCast.com, the securities law network. Example: “LawCast expounds on NASDAQ listing requirements.”

Anthony L.G., PLLC makes this general information available for educational purposes only. The information is general in nature and does not constitute legal advice. Furthermore, the use of this information, and the sending or receipt of this information, does not create or constitute an attorney-client relationship between us. Therefore, your communication with us via this information in any form will not be considered as privileged or confidential.

This information is not intended to be advertising, and Anthony L.G., PLLC does not desire to represent anyone desiring representation based upon viewing this information in a jurisdiction where this information fails to comply with all laws and ethical rules of that jurisdiction. This information may only be reproduced in its entirety (without modification) for the individual reader’s personal and/or educational use and must include this notice.

© Anthony L.G., PLLC

Copy of Logo

Share this article:


For more information on terms in this article click for more blogs on the topic.

Never miss any important news. Subscribe to our newsletter.

Leave a Reply


Contact Author

Laura Anthony Esq

Have a Question for Laura Anthony?