Profit Expectation is the Trigger. The Howey Test's central pillar is the expectation of profits from the efforts of others. Science tokens like those for biotech or AI compute markets explicitly promise returns from R&D, creating a perfect legal target for the SEC.
decentralized-science-desci-fixing-research
Blog
Why Regulators Will Target 'Science Tokens' as Unregistered Securities
An analysis of how DeSci tokens funding biotech and research projects structurally fail the Howey Test, making them low-hanging fruit for the SEC's enforcement agenda. We examine the legal precedent, token models, and inevitable regulatory reckoning.
introduction
THE REGULATORY HAMMER
Introduction: The Inevitable Collision
AI and DeSci tokens are the next enforcement target because their core value proposition is a direct claim on future profits from a centralized development effort.
Decentralization Theater Fails. Unlike Bitcoin or Ethereum, where network utility is primary, DeSci projects like VitaDAO or LabDAO rely on centralized teams for scientific progress. This operational reality negates the 'sufficiently decentralized' defense used by other protocols.
The Precedent is Set. The SEC's cases against Ripple (XRP) and LBRY established that selling tokens to fund development constitutes a securities offering. AI compute tokens that sell to fund GPU cluster construction are a textbook replay of this violation.
Evidence: The SEC's 2023 case against Impact Theory, an NFT project, shows the agency's willingness to apply securities law to any asset sold with a promise of future developer-led value increase, a model DeSci tokens inherently follow.
key-trends
WHY REGULATORS WILL TARGET 'SCIENCE TOKENS' AS UNREGISTERED SECURITIES
The DeSci Enforcement Landscape: Three Trends
The SEC's Howey Test is a legal sledgehammer, and DeSci's financialization creates a perfect target.
01
The 'Investment of Money' is Obvious
DeSci protocols like VitaDAO and Molecule directly sell tokens to fund research, creating a clear capital contribution. Regulators see this as a primary offering, not a utility purchase.
- Key Signal: Token sale precedes platform utility, mirroring an ICO.
- Key Risk: $100M+ in collective funding across top projects creates a high-stakes enforcement target.
$100M+
Collective Funding
ICO
Legal Parallel
02
The 'Common Enterprise' is the Protocol Itself
Token value is explicitly tied to the success of the research portfolio, a textbook 'common enterprise'. Projects like LabDAO pool funds, creating horizontal commonality.
- Key Mechanism: Token holders profit from IP licensing or biotech exits.
- Legal Precedent: This mirrors the SEC v. Kik case, where Kin tokens were deemed securities due to ecosystem dependence.
Horizontal
Commonality
SEC v. Kik
Precedent
03
The 'Expectation of Profit' is Promoted
Roadmaps and communications emphasize token appreciation from successful trials or IP sales, not just governance. This satisfies the final Howey prong.
- Key Evidence: Marketing materials highlight financial returns, not just scientific participation.
- Enforcement Trigger: A single successful biotech exit (e.g., Bio.xyz portfolio company) will draw immediate regulatory scrutiny for profit distribution.
Howey Prong 3
Satisfied
IP Exit
Trigger Event
thesis-statement
THE REGULATORY REALITY
Core Thesis: The Howey Test is a Binary Assay
The SEC's Howey Test is a blunt instrument that will classify most utility tokens as securities, with science and data tokens being primary targets.
The Howey Test is binary. It asks if there is an investment of money in a common enterprise with an expectation of profits from the efforts of others. If a token's primary narrative is future platform utility or data monetization, it fails. The SEC views promotional marketing as evidence of profit expectation, making most token launches non-compliant.
Science tokens are uniquely vulnerable. Projects like Ocean Protocol (data markets) or Render Network (compute) explicitly tokenize future service access and revenue streams. This directly maps to a common enterprise relying on the team's development efforts. Their utility is speculative until the network achieves critical mass, which regulators equate with an investment contract.
The 'sufficient decentralization' defense is a myth. Ethereum may have passed this threshold, but nascent Layer 1s like Aptos or application-specific chains do not. The SEC's action against Coinbase for its staking program proves that even post-launch, centralized development and promotion maintain securities status. Most science projects never achieve the decentralization of Bitcoin or Ethereum.
Evidence: The SEC's enforcement pattern. The agency targeted Filecoin (FIL), a decentralized storage token, with a Wells Notice. Their case hinges on the initial fundraising and ongoing development by Protocol Labs. This precedent establishes that infrastructure tokens with a profit-sharing model are securities, regardless of their technical utility.
SECURITY ANALYSIS
DeSci Token Mechanics vs. Howey Test Prongs
A direct comparison of common DeSci token design patterns against the four prongs of the Howey Test, which defines an investment contract.
| Howey Test Prong / Token Feature | Utility Token Model (e.g., Data Access) | Governance Token Model (e.g., DAO Voting) | Revenue-Share / Profit Token Model |
|---|---|---|---|
| False (Purchased for service access) | True (Often purchased for speculative gain) | True (Directly purchased for profit expectation) |
| False (Value tied to platform use, not collective success) | True (Value tied to DAO's collective success/failure) | True (Value tied to IP portfolio or lab revenue) |
| Weak (Primary purpose is utility consumption) | Strong (Speculative trading is primary market activity) | Explicit (Tokenomics promise yield from revenues) |
| False (Value accrues from user's own research use) | True (Value depends on DAO contributors' management) | True (Value depends wholly on lab team's R&D efforts) |
Primary Regulatory Risk | Low (Potential CFTC commodity classification) | High (Classic governance token security pattern) | Extreme (Mirrors traditional equity/security) |
Example Mitigation Strategy | Burn-on-use, non-transferable, fixed price | Active, non-speculative governance (e.g., Soulbound) | Registered Security (Reg D/S), no public sale |
Representative Projects | GenomesDAO (data NFTs), VitaDAO (membership) | LabDAO (OPOLIS), AthenaDAO | BioPharma IP-NFT platforms, traditional biotech spin-outs |
deep-dive
THE SECURITY
Deep Dive: The Fatal Flaw in DeSci Tokenomics
DeSci protocols are engineering their own regulatory demise by misapplying DeFi token models to scientific research.
Tokenized research ownership is a security. The Howey Test's 'expectation of profit from others' effort' is triggered when a token's value is explicitly linked to future research outcomes, as seen in projects like VitaDAO or LabDAO. This creates a direct, enforceable claim against the issuer.
Governance tokens fail as a shield. Protocols like Molecule or Bio.xyz argue tokens are for governance, not profit. Regulators will see this as a legal fiction when token price charts correlate with trial results or IP licensing deals, a pattern observable in early DeSci markets.
The precedent is established. The SEC's actions against LBRY and ongoing cases define a broad interpretation of investment contracts. DeSci's profit-driven narratives and public fundraising create a perfect enforcement target, unlike non-speculative utility tokens for gas or storage.
Evidence: The VitaDAO VITA token whitepaper explicitly states its purpose is to 'fund and commercialize longevity research,' creating a clear profit expectation derived from the managerial efforts of its core team and funded scientists.
case-study
THE SCIENCE TOKEN THESIS
Case Studies: Protocols in the Crosshairs
Regulatory scrutiny is shifting from simple payment tokens to complex DeFi primitives where the 'investment contract' argument is most potent.
01
The Helium Model: Tokenizing Physical Infrastructure
The SEC's case against Helium ($HNT) sets a precedent for any token that funds real-world hardware deployment. The Howey Test applies when token value is explicitly tied to the success of a business venture.
- Key Problem: Token sale proceeds directly funded hotspot manufacturing and network expansion.
- Key Trigger: Marketing emphasized future profits from network usage fees, not current utility.
- The Target: Any 'DePIN' project (e.g., Hivemapper, Render Network) with a similar capital formation model is now in the crosshairs.
$250M+
Initial Raise
SEC Settlement
Precedent
02
Liquidity Staking Derivatives: The Yield-Bearing Security
Tokens like Lido's stETH or Rocket Pool's rETH represent a claim on future staking rewards from a managed pool. Regulators view this as a classic investment contract with an expectation of profit from others' efforts.
- Key Problem: The derivative's value is derived from the professional node operators' performance, not the holder's direct action.
- Centralization Risk: A few entities (e.g., Lido, Coinbase) control >30% of staked ETH, creating a clear 'common enterprise'.
- The Target: Any protocol where token accrues passive yield from a managed service, especially with $40B+ TVL at stake.
>30%
Market Share
$40B+
Collective TVL
03
AI Agent Tokens: The Ultimate 'Efforts of Others' Test
Tokens that grant access to or reward AI model training/execution (e.g., Bittensor's $TAO, Fetch.ai's $FET) are prime targets. Value is entirely dependent on the development team's ongoing R&D and third-party AI contributors.
- Key Problem: Tokenomics often involve rewarding developers for improving a network, directly linking price to the managerial efforts of a core team.
- Marketing Language: Widespread use of terms like 'revenue share', 'ecosystem growth', and 'model dividends' mirrors traditional security offerings.
- The Target: The entire AI x Crypto narrative, where the utility is complex and speculative, making the 'investment' case easier to prove than the 'consumption' case.
$10B+
Sector Market Cap
Core Dev Reliance
Critical Flaw
04
The 'Fair Launch' Fallacy & Retroactive Airdrops
Protocols like Uniswap ($UNI) and dYdX ($DYDX) conducted 'retroactive' airdrops to past users. Regulators may argue the pre-launch usage constituted an implicit investment of time/effort with an expectation of future token rewards.
- Key Problem: The airdrop was a distribution of a governance token whose value was created by the founding team's prior work, satisfying the 'common enterprise' prong.
- Legal Grey Area: User activity was the 'consideration' invested. The SEC's case against Coinbase over its staking program uses similar logic.
- The Target: Any major protocol with a retroactive airdrop >$1B in value, establishing a de facto pre-launch investment scheme.
$1B+
Airdrop Value
User as Investor
Legal Theory
counter-argument
THE HOWEY TEST
Counter-Argument & Refutation: "But It's Utility!"
A token's functional utility does not shield it from securities law if its economic reality is an investment contract.
Utility is not a legal shield. The SEC's Howey Test examines the economic reality of a transaction, not its technological wrapper. A token facilitating compute on Render Network or data access via Ocean Protocol still constitutes a security if sold to fund development with the expectation of profits from that team's efforts.
The expectation of profit is paramount. Buyers of science tokens like those for AI training or biotech R&D are not purchasing a pure utility tool; they are speculating on the protocol's future value accrual. This investment contract is separate from the token's technical function, which regulators will legally disentangle.
Precedent exists with functional assets. The SEC's case against Ripple Labs established that even a token with a legitimate use case (cross-border payments) is a security when sold to investors expecting enterprise-driven appreciation. The same logic applies directly to research and science-based token models.
Evidence: In the LBRY case, the court ruled its LBC tokens were securities despite functional utility within a decentralized content platform, stating "the economic reality is that purchasers were investing in a common enterprise."
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
FAQ: The Builder's Dilemma
Common questions about the regulatory risks for 'Science Tokens' and why they are prime targets for securities enforcement.
A 'Science Token' is a crypto asset whose value is directly tied to the performance of a specific, complex protocol or research outcome. Unlike simple governance tokens, these assets are marketed based on future utility and revenue from novel mechanisms, such as those found in DeFi protocols like EigenLayer or cross-chain messaging layers, making them resemble investment contracts.
future-outlook
THE REGULATORY RECKONING
Future Outlook: The Path to Legitimacy
The SEC's Howey Test will classify most 'science tokens' as unregistered securities, forcing a fundamental restructuring of their utility and distribution models.
The Howey Test is binary. A token is a security if it represents an investment of money in a common enterprise with an expectation of profits from the efforts of others. Most decentralized science (DeSci) tokens fail this test because their value is explicitly tied to the success of a specific research team or protocol, not a generalized utility.
'Utility' is not a shield. Projects like VitaDAO or LabDAO argue their tokens grant governance rights or access to IP. Regulators see this as a secondary utility wrapper on a primary security. The precedent is clear: if the founding team's efforts are essential for value accrual, the token is a security, regardless of its on-chain functions.
The precedent is Kik's Kin. The SEC's 2020 victory against Kik Interactive established that a future promise of an ecosystem constitutes an investment contract. DeSci projects that fundraise by promising a future data marketplace or research platform are replicating this exact model, making them vulnerable to enforcement.
Evidence: The Hinman Speech. The SEC's 2018 framework states a token may transition from a security to a non-security if it is sufficiently decentralized. No major DeSci project meets this threshold; core development and IP control remain centralized with founding entities, ensuring regulatory scrutiny.
takeaways
REGULATORY FRONTIER
Key Takeaways for CTOs & Architects
The SEC's 'investment contract' test is a legal sledgehammer, not a technical scalpel. Here's how it will be applied to the next wave of tokenized R&D.
01
The 'Howey Test' is a Trap for Functional Tokens
The SEC's framework asks: 1) Is there an investment of money? 2) In a common enterprise? 3) With a reasonable expectation of profits? 4) Derived from the efforts of others?\n- Token utility is not a defense if a secondary market for price speculation exists.\n- Promotional marketing (e.g., 'revolutionizing drug discovery') directly fuels 'expectation of profit.'\n- Pre-launch token sales for unreleased protocols are a near-certain violation.
4-Part
Legal Test
0%
Tech Immunity
02
Decentralization is the Only Viable Shield
A truly decentralized network where token value is derived from organic, user-driven utility can pass regulatory muster. The precedent is Ethereum and Bitcoin.\n- Foundational R&D must be complete before the network launches. Tokens are for access, not funding development.\n- Governance must be fully operational and permissionless from day one, removing 'efforts of others' dependency.\n- Avoid centralized treasuries funding ongoing core development post-launch—this re-centralizes 'effort.'
Post-Launch
Token Release
100%
On-Chain Gov
03
The 'Vitalik Exception' is Unrepeatable
Ethereum's ICO occurred in a regulatory gray zone that no longer exists. Modern projects like Filecoin, Dfinity, and Algorand faced intense scrutiny despite technical merit.\n- Historical precedent is irrelevant. The SEC's 2023 enforcement posture is radically more aggressive.\n- 'Sufficient decentralization' is a moving target defined retroactively by court outcomes, not code.\n- Architect for a Wells Notice: Assume your tokenomics and marketing will be subpoenaed. Document all public communications as if for a jury.
2014
Last Safe ICO
50+
Enforcement Actions
04
Model Failure: Tokens Funding Academic Consortia
A 'science DAO' that sells tokens to fund university research partnerships is a prime enforcement target. The value accrual is explicitly tied to the R&D output of identifiable third parties (the labs).\n- Token = Security. The 'common enterprise' is the research consortium; profits are expected from its success.\n- IP licensing schemes compound the risk, creating a clear profit-sharing mechanism.\n- Solution: Structure as a traditional funding round (SAFE, equity) for the legal entity, then airdrop utility tokens for network access post-research completion.
High
Prosecution Risk
Airdrop
Safe Path
05
The 'Access Token' Fallacy
Claiming a token is 'just for accessing compute/data' fails if its market price is volatile and traded on secondary exchanges. Regulators view this as a speculative investment vehicle.\n- Fixed-price, non-transferable credits are the compliant model (see AWS credits).\n- If it's traded on Uniswap, it's a security in the SEC's current view.\n- Technical design must enforce utility: Burn-and-mint models for service payment are safer than staking-for-yield models.
Non-Transferable
Key Design
Burn-Mint
Compliant Model
06
Actionable Architecture Checklist
To build defensibly:\n- Launch the functional network first. Use traditional capital (VC equity) to fund all R&D.\n- Introduce tokens only for protocol governance and fee payment after network effects are evident.\n- No pre-sales, no promises. Token distribution should be via work (proof-of-work, proof-of-contribution) or broad airdrops to users.\n- Retain top securities counsel from day zero, not after the token design is finalized.
Network-First
Launch Order
Day Zero
Legal Counsel
ENQUIRY
Get In Touch
today.
Our experts will offer a free quote and a 30min call to discuss your project.
NDA Protected
Confidentiality24h Response
Time to ValueDirectly to Engineering Team
No Sales Fluff10+
Protocols Shipped
$20M+
TVL Overall