SEC v. Coinbase, Big Update: Six Securities Law Scholars File Devastating Amicus Brief in Support of @Coinbase. Law Professors from Yale, Univ. of Chicago, UCLA, Fordham, Boston University and Widener filed an amicus brief last night that Absolutely Shreds the SEC's "investment contract" theory. The amicus brief brilliantly traces the history of the meaning of "investment contract" before, during & after passage of the federal Securities Act in 1933. Here are the Scholars' conclusions: 1. "By 1933, the state courts had converged around a standard for interpreting the term 'investment contract' to mean a contractual arrangement that entitled an investor to a contractual share of the seller's later income, profits, or assets." 2. After the Howey decision in 1946, the "common thread [for investment contracts] remains . . . that an investor must be promised, by virtue of his or her investment, an ongoing contractual interest in the income, profits, or assets of the enterprise." 3. "Every 'Investment Contract' identified by the Supreme Court Involves a contractual undertaking to grant a surviving stake in the enterprise." ___________________________________________ Bottom line: In my opinion, this Amicus Brief delivers the coup de grace to the SEC's argument that crypto tokens trading on secondary markets are investment contracts. storage.courtlistener.com/re…