Token Launch Legal Checklist: Avoiding SEC Enforcement in 2025

By Chanté Eliaszadeh | October 8, 2025

The SEC's cryptocurrency enforcement program collected a record-breaking $4.98 billion in penalties during 2024, with 58% of enforcement actions alleging unregistered securities offerings.¹ The message is clear: launching a token without proper securities law compliance is no longer a calculated risk—it's a liability that can destroy your company.

Yet despite years of enforcement actions, many crypto founders still approach token launches with outdated assumptions. The "launch first, ask questions later" era is over. In 2025, with the SEC's Crypto Task Force developing comprehensive regulatory frameworks and courts applying securities law with increasing clarity, token issuers face a stark choice: invest in compliance upfront, or risk multimillion-dollar penalties and potential criminal liability later.

This comprehensive guide provides a practical roadmap for compliant token launches in 2025. We'll walk through the Howey Test analysis that determines whether your token is a security, compare registration exemption strategies under Regulations D, S, and A+, and provide detailed pre-launch and post-launch compliance checklists. Most importantly, we'll give you the decision frameworks and cost estimates you need to plan your token launch intelligently—before you commit to a path that could expose your company to catastrophic regulatory risk.

The 2025 Enforcement Landscape: What's Changed

The SEC brought 33 cryptocurrency-related enforcement actions in 2024, with unregistered securities offerings remaining the most common violation.² Recent high-profile settlements illustrate the stakes:

Terraform Labs and Do Kwon: $4.5 Billion Settlement

In April 2024, a jury unanimously found Terraform Labs and founder Do Kwon liable for orchestrating a multi-year fraud involving unregistered crypto asset securities that wiped out tens of billions in investor value.³ The settlement included $3.6 billion in disgorgement from Terraform Labs, plus civil penalties of $420 million against the company and $80 million against Kwon personally. Terraform agreed to cease selling crypto asset securities and wind down operations entirely.

Key lesson: The lack of registration carries real consequences that extend beyond financial penalties to operational shutdown and criminal referrals.

Ripple Labs: $125 Million Penalty (Reduced to $50 Million)

The Ripple case established critical precedent distinguishing token sales by transaction type. Judge Torres' 2023 ruling held that institutional sales to sophisticated investors constituted unregistered securities offerings, while programmatic sales on secondary exchanges did not.⁴ The court found that institutional investors had reasonable expectations of profits derived from Ripple's efforts, whereas programmatic buyers on decentralized exchanges could not reasonably form such expectations.

Key lesson: Token classification depends on how it's sold, not just the nature of the asset itself. Distribution mechanics matter.

Consensys Software: MetaMask Staking Enforcement

In June 2024, the SEC charged Consensys with conducting unregistered securities offerings through its MetaMask staking service, alleging the company participated in distributing staking programs and operated as an unregistered broker.⁵ This action signaled the SEC's expanding view of what constitutes securities intermediation in the crypto space.

Key lesson: Even established companies with regulatory counsel face enforcement risk. Post-launch compliance obligations are ongoing.

Is Your Token a Security? The Howey Test Analysis

Every token launch compliance strategy begins with a single question: Is your token a security under federal law? The answer determines whether you must register with the SEC or qualify for an exemption, and the consequences of getting it wrong are severe.

The Four-Prong Howey Test

The Supreme Court's 1946 decision in SEC v. W.J. Howey Co. established that an "investment contract" exists when there is:

1. An investment of money
2. In a common enterprise
3. With an expectation of profits
4. Derived from the entrepreneurial or managerial efforts of others⁶

If all four elements are present, your token is a security subject to federal securities laws.

Applying Howey to Token Offerings

The SEC's 2019 Framework for "Investment Contract" Analysis of Digital Assets provides detailed guidance on applying Howey to tokens.⁷ Here's how to evaluate each prong:

Prong 1: Investment of Money

This prong is almost always satisfied. Contributing cash, cryptocurrency, or other consideration in exchange for tokens constitutes an investment of money. Even "free" airdrops may satisfy this element if recipients must perform tasks or provide value in exchange.

Decision point: If users pay anything for your token (cash, crypto, labor), assume this prong is satisfied.

Prong 2: Common Enterprise

Courts typically find common enterprise when investors' fortunes are tied together or to the promoter's success. For token offerings, this usually means:

• Horizontal commonality: All token holders' interests rise and fall together based on the project's success
• Vertical commonality: Token holders' profits depend on the efforts and success of the development team

Decision point: If all token holders share the same contractual rights and their tokens have the same value based on project success, common enterprise likely exists.

Prong 3: Reasonable Expectation of Profits

This is often the critical prong for token analysis. The SEC focuses on whether purchasers reasonably expect profits derived from capital appreciation or distributions, rather than purchasing the token for its functionality.

Factors indicating expectation of profits:

• Marketing emphasizes investment returns or price appreciation
• Token has no current utility—value depends entirely on future development
• Secondary market trading is highlighted or facilitated
• Token structure includes dividends, revenue sharing, or buybacks
• Scarcity or limited supply is marketed as driving value
• Promoters make statements about expected price increases
• Token is marketed to general public as investment opportunity

Factors suggesting NO expectation of profits:

• Token provides immediate utility on a functional network
• Marketing focuses on consumptive use, not investment returns
• Token is necessary to access or use a product or service
• Price is stable or algorithmically fixed
• Distribution is targeted to likely users, not speculators
• No statements about investment potential or appreciation

Decision point: Review all marketing materials, website copy, social media, pitch decks, and private communications. If you've emphasized investment potential more than utility, expect the SEC to find this prong satisfied.

Prong 4: Efforts of Others

This prong examines whether token holders rely on a promoter or third party to generate profits. The SEC considers:

Factors indicating reliance on others' efforts:

• Promoter has exclusive or primary responsibility for token/network development
• Significant ongoing development is needed for token functionality
• Centralized team controls protocol upgrades or governance
• Marketing highlights the team's expertise and track record
• Token holders have no meaningful governance rights
• Network requires ongoing managerial or entrepreneurial efforts
• Success depends on promoter's future performance

Factors suggesting NO reliance on others' efforts:

• Network is fully functional and decentralized at token launch
• Token holders control governance through voting mechanisms
• No central party has special rights or control
• Network can operate without further development
• Multiple independent parties contribute to the ecosystem
• Open-source code with distributed development

Decision point: If your network isn't functional and decentralized at launch, or if purchasers are buying based on your team's future efforts, this prong is likely satisfied.

The "Sufficient Decentralization" Defense

The SEC has acknowledged that tokens may start as securities but later cease to be securities if the network becomes "sufficiently decentralized."⁸ However, this transition is rare and requires:

• Network functionality: The token must have real utility on a working network
• Distributed governance: No single party controls protocol decisions
• Active participation: Token holders meaningfully participate in governance
• No ongoing promotional efforts: The original promoter steps back
• Secondary market independence: Trading occurs without promoter involvement

Reality check: Very few projects achieve sufficient decentralization to escape securities classification. Do not assume your token will qualify for this exception—plan for securities compliance instead.

Decision Framework: Is Your Token a Security?

Use this decision tree to assess your token's securities status:

START: Are you offering tokens to raise capital?
  │
  ├─ NO → Token likely not a security (consumptive use only)
  │        ↓
  │        Confirm: No investment marketing, functional utility exists
  │
  └─ YES → Does the token provide immediate utility on a functional network?
            │
            ├─ YES → Is utility the primary marketing message?
            │         │
            │         ├─ YES → Is the network sufficiently decentralized?
            │         │         │
            │         │         ├─ YES → Token may not be a security
            │         │         │         (Rare—get legal analysis)
            │         │         │
            │         │         └─ NO → Token likely a security
            │         │
            │         └─ NO → Token is a security
            │
            └─ NO → Token is a security
                     ↓
                     PROCEED TO EXEMPTION ANALYSIS

If your token is a security, you have two options:

1. Register the offering with the SEC (rare, expensive, time-consuming)
2. Qualify for a registration exemption (most common path)

Registration Exemption Strategies: Regulation D, S, and A+ Compared

Once you've determined your token is a security, you must either register the offering or qualify for an exemption. Registration is rarely practical for startups (costs exceed $1 million and take 6-12 months), so most projects rely on exemptions.

Regulation D: Private Placements to Accredited Investors

Regulation D provides safe harbors for private placements without SEC registration. Two rules dominate token offerings:

Rule 506(b): Private Placement Without General Solicitation

Who can buy:

• Unlimited accredited investors
• Up to 35 sophisticated but non-accredited investors (rarely used for tokens)

Key restrictions:

• NO general solicitation or advertising
• Must have pre-existing relationship with investors or conduct sophisticated verification
• Tokens are "restricted securities" subject to 12-month holding period
• Cannot resell without registration or exemption

Advantages:

• No dollar limit on offering size
• Familiar to venture capital investors
• Lower compliance costs than 506(c)

Disadvantages:

• Cannot publicly market the offering
• Pre-existing relationships required (limits investor pool)
• Secondary trading severely restricted

Best for: Private token sales to institutional investors and high-net-worth individuals with whom you have existing relationships

Typical legal costs: $50,000-$100,000

Rule 506(c): Private Placement With General Solicitation

Who can buy:

• Only verified accredited investors
• Must take "reasonable steps" to verify accredited status (reviewing tax returns, bank statements, third-party verification services)

Key restrictions:

• All purchasers must be accredited (no sophisticated investor exception)
• Tokens are restricted securities (12-month holding period)
• Secondary trading restrictions apply

Advantages:

• Can publicly advertise the offering
• No dollar limit on offering size
• Can market through social media, conferences, websites

Disadvantages:

• Heightened verification requirements (additional compliance burden)
• Only accredited investors can participate
• Secondary market complications

Best for: Publicly marketed token sales targeting accredited investors, often combined with a SAFT structure

Typical legal costs: $75,000-$150,000 (higher due to verification requirements)

The SAFT Structure: Simple Agreement for Future Tokens

A SAFT (Simple Agreement for Future Tokens) is a contractual arrangement where investors purchase the right to receive tokens in the future, typically upon network launch. The SAFT itself is sold under Regulation D (usually 506(c)), and the tokens are delivered later when the network becomes functional.

The theory: The SAFT is clearly a security (no utility yet), but the tokens delivered later may not be securities if the network is sufficiently decentralized at delivery.

The reality: Courts have rejected this theory, finding that both the initial SAFT sale and subsequent token distribution are part of a single integrated offering requiring registration.⁹ The Telegram and Kik enforcement actions demonstrate that the SEC views SAFT structures skeptically.

Our recommendation: Do not rely on SAFT structures to avoid securities compliance for the delivered tokens. Treat both the SAFT and the tokens as securities requiring ongoing compliance.

Regulation S: Offshore Sales to Non-U.S. Investors

Regulation S provides an exemption for securities offerings made outside the United States to non-U.S. persons, with no directed selling efforts in the United States.¹⁰

Key requirements:

• Offshore transaction: Offer made outside U.S., buyer outside U.S. at time of purchase
• No directed selling efforts in U.S.: Cannot target U.S. investors through advertising, websites, or other means
• Distribution compliance period: Securities must remain offshore for specified period (typically 6-12 months)

Advantages:

• Can be combined with U.S. exemption (e.g., Reg D in U.S. + Reg S offshore)
• No dollar limit
• No accredited investor requirements for offshore purchasers

Disadvantages:

• Complex geographic restrictions
• IP address blocking and investor screening required
• Distribution compliance monitoring
• Resale restrictions

Best for: Projects with significant international user base conducting parallel offerings in U.S. (Reg D) and internationally (Reg S)

Typical legal costs: $40,000-$80,000 (in addition to U.S. exemption costs if combined)

Regulation A+: Mini-IPO for Public Token Sales

Regulation A+ allows companies to conduct public offerings without full SEC registration, raising up to $75 million in a 12-month period (Tier 2).¹¹

Key requirements:

• SEC qualification: File offering statement (Form 1-A) reviewed by SEC (3-4 months)
• Ongoing reporting: Annual reports, semiannual reports, current reports
• Financial statements: Audited financials required for Tier 2
• Investment limits: For Tier 2, non-accredited investors limited to 10% of income or net worth

Advantages:

• Can sell to general public (not just accredited investors)
• Can publicly advertise and market
• Tokens are NOT restricted securities (no mandatory holding period)
• Immediate secondary trading permitted
• "Testing the waters" provision allows gauging interest before filing

Disadvantages:

• Expensive and time-consuming ($200,000-$400,000+ in legal and accounting fees)
• SEC review process (3-6 months)
• Ongoing reporting obligations
• State blue sky law compliance required (unless Tier 2 used)
• Financial statement audit requirements

Best for: Established projects seeking broad public participation and immediate token liquidity

Typical legal costs: $200,000-$400,000+

Precedent: Blockstack PBC completed the first SEC-qualified Regulation A+ token offering in July 2019, raising $23 million from 4,000+ investors.¹²

Exemption Strategy Comparison Table

Pre-Launch Legal Compliance Checklist

Use this comprehensive checklist to ensure your token launch complies with securities laws and avoids common enforcement triggers.

Phase 1: Legal Foundation (Weeks 1-4)

Securities Analysis

• Conduct Howey Test analysis (document each prong)
• Identify whether token is a security (if uncertain, assume it is)
• Select registration exemption strategy (Reg D 506(b), 506(c), Reg S, Reg A+, or combination)
• Document business purpose and token utility (separate from investment characteristics)
• Review all marketing materials for securities law compliance

Entity Structure

• Select jurisdiction for token-issuing entity (consider Delaware, Cayman, BVI, Wyoming)
• Form entity and obtain EIN/tax ID
• Draft corporate governance documents (bylaws, operating agreements)
• Establish board of directors or managers
• Implement conflict-of-interest policies

Regulatory Registrations

• Determine money transmitter licensing requirements (state-by-state analysis)
• File FinCEN Form 114 (if applicable for money services business)
• Assess whether broker-dealer registration required (if facilitating secondary trading)
• Evaluate CFTC jurisdiction (if token has derivatives characteristics)
• Consider offshore regulatory requirements (if using Reg S)

Legal Costs (Phase 1): $30,000-$75,000

Phase 2: Offering Documentation (Weeks 4-8)

Offering Documents

• Draft Private Placement Memorandum (PPM) or Offering Circular (Reg A+)
• Include all required risk disclosures (30+ standard crypto risk factors)
• Describe token economics, distribution, and use of proceeds
• Disclose team backgrounds, compensation, token allocations
• Include detailed financial projections with assumptions
• Attach term sheet or purchase agreement

Token Purchase Agreement

• Draft token purchase agreement or SAFT
• Include representations and warranties from purchasers
• Require accredited investor certifications (Reg D)
• Include resale restrictions and transfer limitations
• Specify dispute resolution (arbitration clauses)
• Include integration clauses preventing oral modifications

Subscription Process

• Create investor questionnaire (accredited status verification)
• Develop KYC/AML procedures (identity verification, sanctions screening)
• Implement accredited investor verification (tax returns, bank statements, third-party services for 506(c))
• Draft investor onboarding checklist
• Establish investor communications protocol

Legal Costs (Phase 2): $40,000-$100,000

Phase 3: Compliance Infrastructure (Weeks 6-10)

AML/KYC Compliance

• Draft AML compliance program (if money transmitter or MSB)
• Select KYC/AML vendor (Chainalysis, Elliptic, ComplyAdvantage)
• Implement sanctions screening (OFAC, EU, UN lists)
• Establish transaction monitoring for suspicious activity
• Designate AML compliance officer
• Implement customer identification program (CIP)

Technology & Security

• Conduct smart contract security audit (minimum 2 independent auditors)
• Penetration testing of all systems
• Establish bug bounty program
• Implement multi-signature wallet controls for treasury
• Draft incident response plan (for hacks or exploits)
• Establish key management policies

Cap Table & Token Ledger

• Implement cap table management system (Carta, Pulley)
• Track all token allocations (investors, team, advisors, reserves)
• Document vesting schedules and lockups
• Establish transfer restrictions and approval processes
• Plan for eventual integration with blockchain ledger

Compliance Costs (Phase 3): $50,000-$100,000 (including technology vendors)

Phase 4: Marketing & Offering (Weeks 8-12)

Marketing Compliance

• Review all marketing materials for securities law compliance
• Ensure no guarantees, promises, or projections of returns
• Include required disclaimers on all materials
• Avoid using terms like "ICO," "token sale," "investment" (if claiming utility)
• Document all marketing channels and investor outreach
• If using 506(c), ensure compliance with general solicitation rules

SEC Filings

• File Form D with SEC within 15 days of first sale (Reg D)
• File state notice filings (Blue Sky compliance, if required)
• File Form 1-A with SEC (Reg A+ only)
• Respond to SEC comments (Reg A+ only)
• Obtain SEC qualification (Reg A+ only)

Investor Relations

• Establish secure investor portal (document delivery, updates)
• Draft investor update templates (quarterly or as needed)
• Implement investor communication protocols
• Prepare FAQ document addressing common questions
• Establish process for handling investor complaints

Legal Costs (Phase 4): $20,000-$50,000

Phase 5: Token Distribution (Weeks 12-16)

Distribution Mechanics

• Finalize token smart contract (audited and tested)
• Implement vesting and lockup logic (team, advisors, strategic investors)
• Establish token distribution process (manual vs. automated)
• Test distribution on testnet
• Prepare contingency plans for distribution failures
• Document distribution event (dates, amounts, recipients)

Closing & Funding

• Execute token purchase agreements with all investors
• Collect funds (establish segregated bank accounts)
• Verify investor representations and warranties
• Distribute tokens to investor wallets
• Provide transaction confirmations to all purchasers
• Issue investment confirmations or receipts

Record Keeping

• Maintain investor files (agreements, questionnaires, wire receipts)
• Preserve all marketing materials and communications
• Document board resolutions authorizing offering
• Maintain trading records (if secondary trading occurs)
• Retain legal and compliance memoranda

Legal Costs (Phase 5): $15,000-$40,000

Post-Launch Compliance Obligations

Token launch compliance doesn't end at distribution. Ongoing obligations include:

Ongoing Reporting (If Reg A+ Used)

• Annual reports (Form 1-K) within 120 days of fiscal year end
• Semiannual reports (Form 1-SA) within 90 days of half-year end
• Current reports (Form 1-U) for material events
• Exit reports (Form 1-Z) when reporting obligations terminate

Transfer Restrictions Enforcement

• Implement transfer restrictions in smart contract or through centralized ledger
• Monitor secondary trading for compliance with holding periods
• Ensure resales comply with Rule 144 or other exemptions
• Block or reverse non-compliant transfers (if technically feasible)

Investor Communications

• Provide periodic updates on project development
• Disclose material changes or setbacks
• Respond to investor inquiries and complaints
• Maintain investor relations infrastructure

AML/Sanctions Monitoring

• Ongoing sanctions screening (if tokens can be transferred)
• Suspicious activity monitoring and reporting (SARs)
• Annual AML program review and updates
• Training for compliance personnel

State Money Transmitter Compliance

• File quarterly or annual reports with state regulators
• Maintain minimum net worth and surety bond requirements
• Respond to regulatory examinations
• Update license applications for material changes

Ongoing Compliance Costs: $50,000-$200,000 annually (depending on offering size and regulatory obligations)

Total Cost & Timeline Estimates

Regulation D 506(b) Token Launch

Legal & Compliance Costs: $100,000-$200,000 Timeline: 8-12 weeks Includes: Howey analysis, PPM, purchase agreements, Form D, AML program, investor verification

Regulation D 506(c) Token Launch

Legal & Compliance Costs: $125,000-$250,000 Timeline: 10-14 weeks Includes: All 506(b) items plus enhanced accredited investor verification, public marketing compliance

Regulation S (Combined with Reg D)

Legal & Compliance Costs: Add $40,000-$80,000 to Reg D costs Timeline: Add 2-4 weeks Includes: Offshore offering documents, distribution compliance monitoring, IP blocking

Regulation A+ Token Launch

Legal & Compliance Costs: $250,000-$500,000+ Timeline: 16-24 weeks (including SEC review) Includes: Form 1-A, audited financials, SEC comment responses, ongoing reporting infrastructure

These estimates assume:

• Standard token structure (no novel features requiring additional analysis)
• No international securities compliance (except Reg S)
• No state money transmitter licensing (separate analysis required)
• Competent legal counsel with crypto securities experience
• Responsive management team providing information promptly

Costs increase for:

• Novel token structures requiring custom legal analysis
• International offerings in multiple jurisdictions
• Complex vesting or distribution mechanics
• SEC investigation or enforcement response
• Litigation or investor disputes

Common Mistakes & How to Avoid Them

Mistake #1: Assuming "Utility Tokens" Aren't Securities

The myth: If we call it a "utility token" and give it some functionality, it's not a security.

The reality: The label is irrelevant. Courts apply the Howey Test based on economic realities, not what you call the token. If purchasers expect profits from your efforts, it's a security—regardless of incidental utility.

How to avoid: Conduct rigorous Howey analysis. If your token is marketed to investors, sold before network functionality exists, or positioned as an investment, assume it's a security.

Mistake #2: Relying on the SAFT Structure to Avoid Regulation

The myth: Sell SAFTs as securities, then deliver tokens when the network is decentralized—the tokens won't be securities.

The reality: Courts view the SAFT and token delivery as integrated offerings. Both are securities requiring ongoing compliance. Telegram, Kik, and other cases confirm this.

How to avoid: Plan for tokens delivered under SAFTs to be securities. Implement transfer restrictions, resale compliance, and ongoing reporting.

Mistake #3: Ignoring Secondary Market Implications

The myth: Once we sell the tokens under an exemption, buyers can trade them freely.

The reality: Tokens sold under Regulation D are restricted securities subject to 12-month holding periods and resale limitations. Facilitating non-compliant secondary trading can create broker-dealer registration requirements and destroy your exemption.

How to avoid: Implement technical and contractual transfer restrictions. Educate investors about resale limitations. Consider Regulation A+ if immediate liquidity is important.

Mistake #4: Marketing Tokens as Investments

The myth: We can talk about "returns," "appreciation," and "investment opportunities" as long as we also mention utility.

The reality: Marketing materials emphasizing investment returns are direct evidence of the third Howey prong (expectation of profits). The SEC reviews websites, Twitter, Medium posts, pitch decks, and private messages.

How to avoid: Focus marketing exclusively on utility and functionality. Remove investment language. Train team and advisors on compliant communications. Document all marketing materials.

Mistake #5: Launching Before Network is Functional

The myth: We can sell tokens now and build the network later with the proceeds.

The reality: Selling tokens for future functionality is a textbook investment contract. Buyers are funding your development in exchange for potential future value.

How to avoid: If you need capital to build, use traditional equity or debt financing, or explicitly structure the offering as a securities sale under Regulation D or A+. Don't pretend it's something else.

Mistake #6: Underestimating Geographic Restrictions

The myth: We can sell to anyone globally except U.S. persons using Regulation S.

The reality: Regulation S has strict requirements about "directed selling efforts" in the U.S. Accessible websites, U.S.-targeted marketing, or U.S.-based team members can destroy the exemption. Additionally, you must comply with securities laws in every jurisdiction where you sell.

How to avoid: Implement robust IP blocking. Use separate websites for U.S. vs. offshore offerings. Retain local counsel in major foreign jurisdictions. Document all geographic restrictions.

Mistake #7: Failing to Implement AML/KYC Compliance

The myth: Securities law compliance is enough—we don't need AML/KYC for token sales.

The reality: Token issuers may be money transmitters or money services businesses under FinCEN regulations, requiring Bank Secrecy Act compliance including KYC, sanctions screening, and suspicious activity reporting.

How to avoid: Conduct FinCEN registration analysis. Implement robust KYC from day one. Screen against OFAC sanctions lists. Designate AML compliance officer.

Looking Ahead: Regulatory Evolution in 2025

The regulatory landscape for token offerings is evolving rapidly. Key developments to monitor:

Federal Stablecoin Legislation: Multiple bills proposing federal frameworks for stablecoins are pending in Congress. These would create new registration and reserve requirements affecting stablecoin issuers specifically.

SEC Crypto Task Force: In January 2025, the SEC formed a cryptocurrency task force "dedicated to developing a comprehensive and clear regulatory framework for crypto assets."¹³ This signals potential policy shifts toward clearer guidance rather than enforcement-by-litigation.

Judicial Clarity: Court decisions in Ripple, Terraform, and other cases are creating precedent about how Howey applies to token distribution mechanics. Future enforcement actions will likely follow these patterns.

State Regulation: States like California, New York, and Wyoming continue developing crypto-specific regulatory frameworks that may create additional compliance obligations beyond federal securities laws.

Token issuers should expect increased regulatory clarity but also heightened enforcement against non-compliant offerings. The era of "gray area" token launches is ending—projects must choose between full compliance or meaningful enforcement risk.

Conclusion: Compliance is a Competitive Advantage

A $150,000 investment in securities law compliance may seem expensive for a startup. But compare this to Terraform's $4.5 billion settlement, Ripple's $125 million penalty, or the countless projects that shut down after receiving Wells notices.

More importantly, compliance creates competitive advantages:

• Investor confidence: Institutional and sophisticated investors increasingly refuse to participate in non-compliant offerings
• Exchange listings: Major exchanges require evidence of securities law compliance before listing tokens
• Longevity: Compliant projects avoid the constant threat of enforcement that distracts teams and drains resources
• Growth potential: Proper structure enables future fundraising, partnerships, and strategic opportunities

Token launches in 2025 require careful securities law planning, substantial upfront investment, and ongoing compliance obligations. The alternative—hoping regulators won't notice or that token classification is ambiguous—is no longer viable.

Work with experienced securities counsel before making any public statements about your token, accepting any investor funds, or writing a single line of smart contract code. The legal structure you create at the beginning determines whether your project thrives or becomes another cautionary enforcement tale.

---

Need Token Launch Legal Guidance?

Astraea Counsel advises crypto projects on compliant token launches, securities law analysis, and SEC registration exemptions. Former SEC Honors Attorney with expertise in token offerings and enforcement defense. Explore our Digital Assets & Blockchain services.

Related Resources

• SEC Crypto Enforcement Defense: What to Do When You Get a Wells Notice - Defense strategies if your token faces SEC scrutiny
• The SEC's Crypto Pivot: What It Means for Your Startup - Latest SEC enforcement policy changes
• Regulatory Compliance Services - Comprehensive securities law compliance
• Contact Us - Discuss your token launch strategy

---

Disclaimer: This article provides general information for educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Securities regulation is complex and fact-specific. Consult qualified legal counsel for advice on your specific token offering.

---

Footnotes

1. Cornerstone Research, "SEC Cryptocurrency Enforcement 2024 Update" (Jan. 2025), available at https://www.cornerstone.com/insights/press-releases/sec-enforcement-of-cryptocurrency-dropped-30-in-the-last-year-of-the-gensler-administration/ ↩

2. Id. ↩

3. SEC, "Terraform and Kwon to Pay $4.5 Billion Following Fraud Verdict," Press Release No. 2024-73 (June 12, 2024), available at https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2024-73 ↩

4. SEC v. Ripple Labs, Inc., No. 20-cv-10832, 2023 WL 4507900 (S.D.N.Y. July 13, 2023) ↩

5. SEC, "SEC Charges Consensys Software for Unregistered Offers and Sales of Securities Through Its MetaMask Staking Service," Press Release No. 2024-79 (June 28, 2024), available at https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2024-79 ↩

6. SEC v. W.J. Howey Co., 328 U.S. 293, 298-99 (1946) ↩

7. Securities and Exchange Commission, Framework for "Investment Contract" Analysis of Digital Assets (Apr. 3, 2019), available at https://www.sec.gov/corpfin/framework-investment-contract-analysis-digital-assets ↩

8. William Hinman, Director, SEC Division of Corporation Finance, "Digital Asset Transactions: When Howey Met Gary (Plastic)," Speech at Yahoo Finance All Markets Summit: Crypto (June 14, 2018) ↩

9. SEC v. Telegram Grp. Inc., 448 F. Supp. 3d 352 (S.D.N.Y. 2020); SEC v. Kik Interactive Inc., 492 F. Supp. 3d 169 (S.D.N.Y. 2020) ↩

10. 17 C.F.R. § 230.901 et seq. (Regulation S) ↩

11. 17 C.F.R. § 230.251 et seq. (Regulation A) ↩

12. SEC, File No. 024-11056, Blockstack PBC Form 1-A Offering Circular (qualified July 10, 2019) ↩

13. SEC, "Crypto Task Force," available at https://www.sec.gov/about/crypto-task-force ↩