few notes unpacking why this note from the white house crypto report is potentially interesting: - the white house crypto report is recommending @SECgov use its *existing* rulemaking authority to determine when a token is or isn’t a security (via "safe harbor"), as well as exempt certain "network participation" reward frameworks or distributions of certain NFT offerings - presumably @SECgov could start formal rule proposal process in the near future, potentially shortening the time to market clarity on some of the thorniest issues for U.S. crypto startups, and without requiring new congressional legislation interestingly, four years ago @HesterPeirce (informally) proposed a thematically similar idea -- a "token safe harbor" that would allow projects a three year exemption from securities registration while building toward a decentralized network or token functionality in order for a startup to avail itself to the safe harbor, the proposal required ongoing disclosures (plans, tokenomics, team, code, distribution etc), and at the end of the three year grace period, teams would either register tokens or submit an exit report showing network maturity via outside counsel assessment (e.g. <20% control by founders, or a fully functional utility network, etc) at the time, i found the proposal to be a thoughtful approach to classifying between "network tokens" and "registered security" v cool to see some of the merit's of this old "safe harbor" proposal potentially back in scope via the SEC authority