alleged to be securities in the Coinbase, Binance and Kraken Complaints were first sold to the public in similar circumstances or ICOs. Subsequently, in July 2023, the District Court for the Southern District of New York held that while XRP is not a security, certain sales of XRP to certain buyers amounted to “investment contracts” under the Howey test. For a discussion of the evolution of the SEC’s complaint against Ripple Labs, see “Risk Factors—Risk Factors Related to the Regulation of Digital Assets, the Trust and the Shares—A determination that SUI or any other digital asset is or involves a transaction in a “security” may adversely affect the value of SUI and the value of the Shares, and result in potentially extraordinary, nonrecurring expenses to, or termination of, the Trust.” As discussed in “Risk Factors—Risk Factors Related to the Regulation of Digital Assets, the Trust and the Shares—A determination that SUI or any other digital asset is or involves a transaction in a “security” may adversely affect the value of SUI and the value of the Shares, and result in potentially extraordinary, nonrecurring expenses to, or termination of, the Trust,” the SEC issued a Commission level interpretation of the federal securities laws that states that a non-security crypto asset may become subject to an investment contract and remain subject to the investment contract in secondary markets transactions. If SUI is determined to be a “security” or transactions in SUI are determined to be securities transactions under federal or state securities laws by the SEC or a state regulatory agency, or in a proceeding in a court of law or otherwise, it will have material adverse consequences for SUI and an investment in the Shares. See “Risk Factors—Risk Factors Related to the Regulation of Digital Assets, the Trust and the Shares—A determination that SUI or any other digital asset is or involves a transaction in a “security” may adversely affect the value of SUI and the value of the Shares, and result in potentially extraordinary, nonrecurring expenses to, or termination of, the Trust” for a discussion of these consequences. As such, any determination that SUI or transactions in that digital asset are a security under federal or state securities laws may adversely affect the value of SUI and, as a result, an investment in the Shares. Competing industries may have more influence with policymakers than the digital asset industry, which could lead to the adoption of laws and regulations that are harmful to the digital asset industry. The digital asset industry is relatively new, although its influence over public policy is increasing, and it may not have the same access to policymakers and lobbying organizations in many jurisdictions compared to industries with which digital assets may be seen to compete, such as banking, payments and consumer finance. Competitors from other, more established industries may have greater access to and influence with governmental officials and regulators and may be successful in persuading these policymakers that digital assets require heightened levels of regulation compared to the regulation of traditional financial services. As a result, new laws and regulations may be proposed and adopted in the United States and elsewhere, or existing laws and regulations may be interpreted in new ways, that disfavor or impose compliance burdens on the digital asset industry or digital asset platforms, which could adversely impact the value of SUI and therefore the value of the Shares. Regulatory changes or other events in foreign jurisdictions may affect the value of the Shares or restrict the use of one or more digital assets, validating activity or the operation of their networks or the Digital Asset Trading Platform Market in a manner that adversely affects the value of the Shares. Various foreign jurisdictions have, and may continue to adopt laws, regulations or directives that affect the digital asset network, the Digital Asset Markets, and their users, particularly Digital Asset Trading Platforms and service providers that fall within such jurisdictions’ regulatory scope. For example, if foreign jurisdictions in addition to China were to ban or otherwise restrict validating activity, including by regulating or limiting manufacturers’ ability to produce or sell semiconductors or hard drives in connection with validating, it would have a material adverse effect on digital asset networks (including the Sui Network), the Digital Asset Market, and as a result, impact the value of the Shares.
49
Made with FlippingBook - professional solution for displaying marketing and sales documents online