Is MaidSafeCoin / SafeCoin a security? Should MaidSafe Foundation comply accordingly?


I’m not a lawyer, accountant or any sort of expert in the area at all but it seems like MaidSafeCoin / SafeCoin could be a security. In which case the Foundation might be wise to register with the appropriate governing bodies, SEC, Consumer Protection and Markets Authority etc.

Would love to hear from some experts on these matters, hopefully there is someone in the forum who can shed some light on whether the MaidSafe Foundation should be filing with these regulators.

I’ve changed the way this post is worded after reading the below responses. The posts below are in response to the question being asked in a more accusatory way. Thank you for your responses and to Neo for changing the topic title.


You’re making a lot of assumptions here. The defining value behind SafeCoin is its use in a transaction for the purchase of network space or computing time, as a result it is classified not as a security but as a utility token.

SEC v. Howey is the case law in the US behind defining a security and there is a commonly used “Howey test” which requires a potential security to meet the following requirement to be classified as a security:

  • You trade the token for something of intrinsic value
  • The investment is described as something which will have a greater return
  • The finances of the company offering the security are interwoven with the finances of the security itself
  • Any profits returned are as a result of the effort of third parties

Here is a post made by Maidsafe before and after the ICO, you’ll notice that they don’t mention profit, the only value associated with the coin is as follows: Once the full SAFE network is launched, MaidSafeCoins will be swapped for safecoins at a 1:1 ratio. All other mentions of the intention of the coin are in relation to its use as a network storage purchase token.

As such, the coin doesn’t pass the Howey test for security classification and is considered a utility token. MaidSafe has no fiduciary responsibility beyond the responsibility of providing the originally offered value: Converting MSC to SafeCoin and allowing the usage of them for purchasing network space.

With all these things in mind, there is no reason for Maidsafe to be in contact with the SEC (especially considering that Maidsafe isn’t even based in the USA, it’s based in Scotland, UK), and the UK’s Securities Commision will hold a similar stance on the position of MSC/SafeCoin as non-securities.


Who are these shareholders?


coin holders are NOT shareholders.

Maidsafe actual shareholders are governed by UK laws, not USA laws, and Maidsafe adhere to UK laws and submit all the required documentation each year as required by UK law.

There was no promise of receiving any profit or gains from the coins. The maidsafecoins are only a holder for safecoins which also have no promises of profit or gain.

Even the SEC ex-lawyer in an interview listed the things that would mean a coin is NOT a security and MAID ticked those boxes. It is clearly not a security,

We’ve had these discussions in other topics and clearly the coin is not a security.

Oh did I mention that Maidsafe are in the UK and not under USA laws. The USA is not the world for crying out loud. Also how in hell would they even register with the SEC since they are not USA company or entity or citizens. Its FUD to suggest that they need to register with the SEC


I changed the title from

MaidSafeCoin / SafeCoin is a security. MaidSafe Foundation should comply accordingly

into Questions.

Explanation: Because the original title was either clickbait or speculation presented as Fact, and if left then search engines and newbies could be presented as Maidsafe the company as doing things illegally. I think the evidence presented by responders shows the original title as completely inappropriate. The reason for changing the title is because of the (legal) seriousness of the accusations