奧里克和傑克遜法官對 SEC 的加密代幣分類進行了打擊

Orrick 法官在 SEC v. Payward Inc.（Kraken 案）中加入了這一討論，向 SEC 發出了強烈的信息。

Pro-XRP lawyer Bill Morgan highlighted a crucial development in the SEC vs. Ripple case, where Judge Torres made a key distinction, reminding the SEC that the XRP token itself is not classified as a security. This pivotal moment in the legal saga directly challenges the SEC's stance on the nature of cryptocurrencies.

支持 XRP 的律師 Bill Morgan 強調了 SEC v. Ripple 案件的一個關鍵進展，托雷斯法官在該案中做出了關鍵區分，提醒 SEC，XRP 代幣本身並不被歸類為證券。法律傳奇中的這一關鍵時刻直接挑戰了 SEC 對加密貨幣性質的立場。

Moreover, in the SEC vs. Payward Inc. (Kraken case), Judge Orrick added to this discourse, delivering a pointed message to the SEC. Using an analogy, he stated, "Orange groves are no more securities than cryptocurrency tokens are." Orrick emphasized the need to differentiate between the nature of the cryptocurrency asset and its sales.

此外，在 SEC v. Payward Inc.（Kraken 案）中，Orrick 法官補充了這一論述，向 SEC 傳遞了尖銳的信息。他打了個比方，“橘子林並不比加密貨幣代幣更安全。”奧里克強調需要區分加密貨幣資產的性質及其銷售。

"The SEC should be careful going forward to maintain this distinction," he cautioned. Continuing, he noted that if the SEC insists on arguing that individual tokens used in Kraken transactions are investment contracts or securities, their case will fail.

「美國證券交易委員會應該謹慎行事，以維持這種區別，」他警告。他繼續指出，如果 SEC 堅持 Kraken 交易中使用的單一代幣是投資合約或證券，他們的案件就會失敗。

In another significant case, SEC vs. Binance, Judge Jackson roundly rejected the SEC's "embodiment theory," which posits that a crypto token is the embodiment of an investment contract.

在另一個重大案件中，SEC 訴幣安，傑克遜法官徹底駁回了 SEC 的“體現理論”，該理論認為加密代幣是投資合約的體現。

Jackson's dismissal of this notion underscores a growing judicial reluctance to accept the SEC's broad interpretation of securities laws as they pertain to digital assets. The pattern emerging from these cases suggests that courts are unlikely to deem the crypto asset itself to be a security, contrary to the SEC's arguments.

傑克森對此概念的駁回凸顯出司法機構越來越不願意接受美國證券交易委員會對涉及數位資產的證券法的廣泛解釋。這些案件中出現的模式表明，法院不太可能將加密資產本身視為證券，這與 SEC 的論點相反。

This begs the question: how many more judicial remarks like these will it take before the SEC abandons its failing embodiment hypothesis? The courts' continuous rejections may ultimately force the SEC to reconsider its approach or face the reality that the judiciary is unlikely to support its sweeping interpretations.

這就引出了一個問題：在 SEC 放棄其失敗的體現假設之前，還需要多少次這樣的司法評論？法院的持續拒絕可能最終迫使美國證券交易委員會重新考慮其做法，或面對司法部門不太可能支持其全面解釋的現實。

On a separate note, as we previously reported, legal expert Fred Rispoli raised an interesting point regarding the financial implications for the SEC if Ripple were to win on all counts in their court case.

另外，正如我們之前報導的，法律專家 Fred Rispoli 提出了一個有趣的觀點，即如果 Ripple 在法庭案件的所有指控中獲勝，對 SEC 的財務影響。

He wondered whether the SEC would be liable to pay statutory interest, which could set a precedent for how penalties are handled in future cases. This potential financial impact on the SEC might influence its strategy in ongoing and future cryptocurrency cases.

他想知道美國證券交易委員會是否有責任支付法定利息，這可能為未來案件如何處理處罰樹立先例。這種對 SEC 的潛在財務影響可能會影響其在當前和未來的加密貨幣案件中的策略。

In other news, CNF reports that OpenSea, the leading NFT platform, has received a Wells notice from the SEC, signaling upcoming enforcement action. The platform is set to contest the SEC's claim that NFTs are securities, allocating $5 million towards its legal defense.

在其他消息中，CNF 報告稱，領先的 NFT 平台 OpenSea 已收到 SEC 的 Wells 通知，表明即將採取執法行動。該平台將針對 SEC 關於 NFT 是證券的說法提出質疑，並撥款 500 萬美元用於其法律辯護。