Former SEC official: The burden of proof always lies with the SEC to prove that a product is a security

In response to the recent U.S. judge’s dismissal of the SEC’s charges against Binance BNB secondary sales and Simple Earn, John Reed Stark, former director of the U.S. SEC’s Internet Enforcement Office, posted on the X platform that the burden of proof is always on the SEC to prove that a certain product is a security. He pointed out that the judge only asked the SEC to prove that people who buy Binance products are "investors" who buy Binance products because they hope the price will rise, rather than "customers" who buy Binance products because the products provide some kind of utility. (such as transaction discounts). According to the judge, a digital asset security “ceases to be a security” if it somehow transforms into a utility instrument rather than a vehicle for investment speculation. Notably, the judge explicitly rejected the puzzling finding in the Ripple ruling that some kind of contractual relationship must exist between investors and issuers in the secondary market to trigger registration requirements, something no other district court has done Conclusions that are supported by any form of adoption or even citation. Considering Binance’s main business line, I don’t think this decision will have any benefit to Binance, any positive impact on the digital asset industry, or any benefit to digital asset investors.