Thread by @msantoriESQ

Last night, @krakenfx fired back at the SEC with its final brief in the motion to dismiss the SEC’s complaint.

The SEC had its opportunity to tell the Court what, precisely, is the investment contract that supposedly trades on Kraken.

But they couldn't. 1/🧵

2/ Instead of identifying a contract, the SEC argued there are investment-like “expectations” and “investment concepts” in the air and those should be good enough.

3/ Instead of identifying a common enterprise (required by the law), it said there is an “ecosystem” and that should be good enough.

4/ Plain talk:

Kraken doesn’t broker, trade or settle “expectations”.

It doesn’t list a single “investment concept”.

The exchange has never passed an “ecosystem” on from a seller to a buyer.

The SEC’s theories here are nonsensical.

5/ Worse, they’re disingenuous. Kraken’s position has always been straightforward:

Investment contracts must be contracts.

The SEC tries to rebut this by arguing:

“There is no requirement that an investment contract be a written contract.”

Well yeah. Kraken never said a written contract was required. Yet that's the argument the SEC is attacking.

6/ Sad to see a federal agency deploy a straw man fallacy so brazenly.

All the more reason for Congress to put in place a regulatory framework that doesn’t require sophistry to enforce.

7/ Look, courts are reluctant to dismiss complaints - especially those brought by the government - at this preliminary stage.

It’s critical nonetheless that the truth be heard early, and we thank the Court for its time and consideration.

8/ You(r lawyer) can read Kraken’s reply brief here: kraken.docsend.com/view/jsfztbg79…