In response to a16z’s legal rebuttal of my $HOOD token idea. I believe Miles is the last crypto lawyer on the planet who still believes this, and it shows in a16z’s “investment” in $UNI, the most worthless token ever created because their firm refuses to allow a fee switch to happen First of all, there is nothing illegal about something being a security. And a16z knows this. If HOOD wanted to issue a token that is a security, they could do that and simply follow security laws. Second, if HOOD were to sell a token on the premise of profit sharing, yes, it would be a security. But notice I didn’t say sell a token. I said airdrop a token. 50% to users, 50% to their shareholders. There are no examples of this model violating securities laws. Using revenue to buyback tokens by itself does not make something a security. Selling a token under this guise may make it a security, but there is no sale. if a16z wants to die on this “everything with revenue is a security” hill, then fine. But the market, the SEC and plenty of other token issuers and lawyers now completely disagree with them. Their token taxonomy proposal is interesting but it is not the law. Crypto assets are completely worthless if they don’t have some form of financial (cash flows/buybacks), utility (spend ability/pay has/ get discounts) and social value (cool factor). There’s a reason $BNB and $HYPE are two of the most successful tokens ever created while the governance tokens a16z has backed have largely gone straight down. You can’t just blindly decide that all tokens have to be decentralized kabuki theatre crap. They can have actual value drivers, and more and more token issuers are going to figure this out.