SEC專員Hester Peirce表示，大多數具有創建特許權使用費機制的NFT可能屬於聯邦證券法的權限。

美國證券交易委員會（SEC）專員赫斯特·皮爾斯（Hester Peirce）表示，許多沒有可殺死的代幣（NFT），包括那些具有支付創作者特許權使用費的機制的代幣（NFTS），可能不在聯邦證券法律的範圍之內。

United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Commissioner Hester Peirce has said many non-fungible tokens (NFTs), including those with mechanisms to pay creator royalties, likely fall outside the purview of federal securities laws.

美國證券交易委員會（SEC）專員赫斯特·皮爾斯（Hester Peirce）表示，許多不可殺死的代幣（NFT），包括那些具有支付創作者特許權使用費的機制的代幣（NFTS），可能不在聯邦證券法律的範圍內。

In a recent speech, Peirce said NFTs that allow artists to earn resale revenue do not automatically qualify as stocks. Unlike stocks, NFTs are programmable assets that distribute proceeds to developers or artists. The SEC official said that mirrors how streaming platforms compensate musicians and filmmakers.

皮爾斯（Peirce）在最近的演講中說，允許藝術家獲得轉售收入的NFTS沒有自動作為股票資格。與股票不同，NFT是將收益分配給開發商或藝術家的可編程資產。 SEC官員說，反映了流媒體平台如何補償音樂家和電影製片人。

“Just as streaming platforms pay royalties to the creator of a song or video each time a user plays it, an NFT can enable artists to benefit from the appreciation in the value of their work after its initial sale,” Peirce said.

Peirce說：“正如流媒體平台每次用戶播放時向歌曲或視頻的創建者支付特許權使用費一樣，NFT也可以使藝術家能夠從最初銷售後的工作價值中受益。”

Peirce added that the feature does not provide NFT owners any rights or interest in any business enterprise or profits “traditionally associated with securities.”

Peirce補充說，該功能並未為任何業務企業或“傳統上與證券相關的利潤”提供NFT所有者的任何權利或權益。

SEC never prohibited NFT royalties

SEC從不禁止NFT特許權使用費

Oscar Franklin Tan, chief legal officer of Enjin core contributor Atlas Development Services, told Cointelegraph that recent remarks by Peirce on NFTs and creator royalties have been widely misunderstood.

Enjin核心貢獻者Atlas Development Services首席法律官Oscar Franklin Tan告訴Cointelegraph，Peirce最近對NFTS和創作者的特許權使用費的評論已被廣泛誤解。

Peirce had clarified that NFTs which send resale royalties to artists are not necessarily securities, a view Tan says is legally sound but mischaracterized in some media reports.

皮爾斯（Peirce）澄清說，向藝術家發送轉售特許權使用費的NFT不一定是證券。

“So Hester Peirce said that an NFT which sends royalties back to the creator after a sale is not a security. This is correct, but the way some media reported this is completely out of context,” Tan told Cointelegraph. “The actual context is that this is not controversial, and it was never considered a security.”

“因此，海斯特·皮爾斯（Hester Peirce）說，在銷售後將特許權使用費還給創作者的NFT不是安全性。這是正確的，但是某些媒體報告這完全是不明智的方式，” Tan告訴Cointelegraph。 “實際背景是這不是有爭議的，而且從未被認為是安全性。”

The lawyer said US securities law is focused on regulating investments and not compensating creators for their work.

律師說，美國證券法的重點是規範投資，而不是賠償創作者的工作。

“The artist or creator is not an investor, not a passive third party in the NFT,” he said, noting that royalty payments are not considered investment income.

他說：“藝術家或創作者不是投資者，不是NFT中的被動第三方。”他指出，特許權使用費不被視為投資收入。

Instead, Tan told Cointelegraph that this type of earning is “analogous to business income,” which the SEC does not regulate. He added:

取而代之的是，譚告訴Cointelegraph，這種類型的收入“類似於商業收入”，而SEC不規範。他補充說：

“If you create a piece of music and someone streams it a million times, the music streaming platform will send you royalties from the streaming fees. No one will say that the streaming platform’s token is a security.”

“如果您創建一首音樂，並且有人將其播放了一百萬次，那麼音樂流媒體平台將向您發送流媒體費用的特許權使用費。沒有人會說流媒體平台的令牌是安全性。”

Tan explained that the legal distinction becomes more complicated when NFTs promise shared profits from royalties to multiple holders beyond the original creator.

譚解釋說，當NFTS承諾從特許權使用費到原始創造者以外的多個持有人的共同利潤時，法律區別變得更加複雜。

Tan also urged regulators and market participants to apply traditional legal reasoning to new blockchain technologies. “Ask yourself, if this were done by pen and paper, would there still be a regulatory issue?” he said. “If none, slow down.”

譚還敦促監管機構和市場參與者將傳統的法律推理應用於新的區塊鏈技術。 “問問自己，如果這是通過筆和紙來完成的，是否還有一個監管問題？”他說。 “如果沒有，請放慢腳步。”

Related: SEC charges Unicoin crypto platform over alleged $100 million fraud

相關：SEC收取Unicoin Crypto平台，涉嫌1億美元欺詐

OpenSea calls on the SEC to exempt NFT marketplaces from oversight

Opensea呼籲SEC豁免NFT市場的監督

While NFT royalties may not have been a controversial SEC issue, NFT marketplaces are a different case. In August 2024, NFT trading platform OpenSea received a Wells notice from the SEC, alleging that NFTs traded on the marketplace could qualify as unregistered securities.

儘管NFT特許權使用費可能不是一個有爭議的SEC問題，但NFT市場是不同的情況。 2024年8月，NFT交易平台Opensea收到了SEC的Wells通知，聲稱在市場上交易的NFTS可以作為未註冊的證券資格。

On Feb. 22, OpenSea CEO Devin Finzer announced that the SEC has officially closed its investigation into the platform. The executive said that this was a win for the industry.

2月22日，Opensea首席執行官Devin Finzer宣布，SEC已正式關閉了對該平台的調查。高管說，這是該行業的勝利。

Following the conclusion of the SEC’s investigation, OpenSea’s lawyers penned a letter to Peirce, who leads the SEC’s Crypto Task Force. OpenSea general counsel Adele Faure and deputy general counsel Laura Brookover said in an April 9 letter that NFT marketplaces don’t qualify as brokers under U.S. securities laws.

在SEC的調查結束後，Opensea的律師寫信給Peirce，後者領導了SEC的加密工作組。 Opensea總法律顧問Adele Faure和副總法律顧問Laura Brookover在4月9日的信中說，NFT Marketplaces沒有根據美國證券法的經紀人資格。

The lawyers said the marketplaces don’t execute transactions or act as intermediaries. The lawyers urged the SEC to “clearly state that NFT marketplaces like OpenSea do not qualify as exchanges under federal securities laws.”

律師說，市場不會執行交易或充當中介。律師敦促美國證券交易委員會（SEC）“明確指出，像Opensea這樣的NFT市場沒有根據聯邦證券法的交流資格。”