{
 "failure_mode": "definitional-ambiguity",
 "specific_names": [
  "Absence of bright line verification standard",
  "Ambiguity, bad definitions, aggregation difficulty",
  "Ambiguous questions and definitions",
  "Ambiguous reporting requirements",
  "BaFin substance over form reclassification",
  "Counterparty definitions unclear to filers",
  "Form PF design defects",
  "Indeterminate reasonable steps standard",
  "Indeterminate statutory cross reference in Article 51",
  "Interpretation dependent RAUM drives thresholds",
  "Interpretive slack in RAUM propagates into designation thresholds",
  "RAUM definition requires filer interpretation",
  "Undefined statutory term defeats agency rulemaking",
  "Unmeasurable market confidence standard",
  "Widespread filer disagreement with definitions",
  "ambiguous definition of represents",
  "amorphous fiduciary duty doctrine",
  "blurred-token-category-lines",
  "brittle formal boundary",
  "centralized-framing-of-decentralization",
  "definitional-contagion",
  "distributed-decentralized-conflation",
  "false equivalence with equities",
  "federal statutes fail to clarify fiduciary duties",
  "flexibility-breeds-confusion",
  "generic-features-no-specific-definition",
  "guidance-by-no-action-letter",
  "inconsistent legal standards",
  "overbroad-leverage-definition",
  "prepack-vote-invalidation",
  "principles that change after the fact",
  "raum-interpretive-instability",
  "residual uncertainty after rule revision",
  "term ambiguity limits keyword measurement",
  "uncertainty from permanent transition",
  "unclassifiable-token-model",
  "uncompensated creator supply failure",
  "undefinable risk standard",
  "undefined long-term value",
  "undefined-securities-token-nomenclature",
  "unresolved-security-classification",
  "utility-label-does-not-defeat-security-status"
 ],
 "count": 43,
 "claims": [
  {
   "id": "kaal:claim:1558614-005",
   "url": "https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/1558614-005",
   "claim": "Law generally declines to adopt a general principle barring managers from incurring risk above a defined standard because such a standard is hard to define; corporate law instead insulates managers' risk decisions through the business judgment rule.",
   "specific_name": "undefinable risk standard",
   "conditions": [
    "outside the scope of rules that constrain specific named types of risk"
   ],
   "source": "Initial Reflections on an Evolving Standard Constraints on Risk Taking by Directors and Officers in",
   "year": "2010",
   "quote": "The law does not do so in most instances because defining such a stan- dard is difficult. Corporate law instead protects the risk decisions of bank managers from challenge through a concept known as the \"business judgment rule.\"",
   "citation": "Painter and Kaal, Initial Reflections on an Evolving Standard Constraints on Risk Taking by Directors and Officers in (2010). SSRN: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1558614"
  },
  {
   "id": "kaal:claim:1908473-038",
   "url": "https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/1908473-038",
   "claim": "Because the Bankruptcy Code does not define adequate information, prepackaged plans risk inadequate disclosure, creditor challenge, and unusable prepetition votes that force the case into the longer ordinary Chapter 11 confirmation procedure.",
   "specific_name": "prepack-vote-invalidation",
   "conditions": [],
   "source": "Contingent Capital with Sequential Triggers",
   "year": "2011",
   "quote": "Given this shortcoming, the agreement may be challenged by creditors. In many cases, the prepetition votes cannot be utilized, forcing the reorganization into the ordinary and much longer plan confirmation procedure under Chapter 11.",
   "citation": "Wulf A. Kaal, Christoph Henkel, Contingent Capital with Sequential Triggers (2011). SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1908473"
  },
  {
   "id": "kaal:claim:2061166-008",
   "url": "https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/2061166-008",
   "claim": "The authors identify a drafting defect in the proposed CRD IV Regulation: the distinction drawn by financial institution in Article 51(a) is ambiguous and the cross reference to the institution referred to in point (a) of Article 87 is unclear and indeterminate, so the provision requires clarification or amendment.",
   "specific_name": "Indeterminate statutory cross reference in Article 51",
   "conditions": [
    "Article 51 of the proposed CRD IV Regulation as drafted"
   ],
   "source": "Contingent Capital in European Union Bank Restructuring",
   "year": "2012",
   "quote": "the distinction is ambiguous and requires further clarification or amendment. Specifically, the statutory reference in § 51, ¶ (a) (\"of the institution referred to in point (a) of Article 87\") is unclear and indeterminate.",
   "citation": "Christoph K. Henkel, Wulf A. Kaal, Contingent Capital in European Union Bank Restructuring (2012). SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2061166"
  },
  {
   "id": "kaal:claim:2061166-014",
   "url": "https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/2061166-014",
   "claim": "Because German law fixes no threshold conditions or determining factors for market reception or market confidence, the systemic relevance and contagion determinations that turn on those factors can never be made in a reliable and objective manner.",
   "specific_name": "Unmeasurable market confidence standard",
   "conditions": [
    "determination of systemic threat under the German Banking Act"
   ],
   "source": "Contingent Capital in European Union Bank Restructuring",
   "year": "2012",
   "quote": "The German law does not stipulate any threshold conditions or determining factors for market reception or confidence. As a result, it will always be difficult to determine any of these factors in a reliable and objective manner.",
   "citation": "Christoph K. Henkel, Wulf A. Kaal, Contingent Capital in European Union Bank Restructuring (2012). SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2061166"
  },
  {
   "id": "kaal:claim:2150377-004",
   "url": "https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/2150377-004",
   "claim": "Before Dodd-Frank the perimeter of hedge fund regulation was set by SEC no-action letters on client counting and by courts that gave very limited and sometimes contradictory guidance, so compliance rested on an unstable and uncertain base rather than on rules.",
   "specific_name": "guidance-by-no-action-letter",
   "conditions": [
    "the period between the 1968 Merrill Lynch action and the 1985 safe harbor rule",
    "advisers seeking to stay exempt from securities regulation"
   ],
   "source": "Hedge Fund Manager Registration Under the Dodd-Frank Act",
   "year": "2012",
   "quote": "However, the SEC continued to provide guidance mostly in the form of no-action letters to help investment advisers determine the counting of clients to stay exempt from securities regulation.44 Courts also provided very limited and sometimes contradictory guidance.45",
   "citation": "Wulf A. Kaal, Hedge Fund Manager Registration Under the Dodd-Frank Act (2012). SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2150377"
  },
  {
   "id": "kaal:claim:2348463-012",
   "url": "https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/2348463-012",
   "claim": "Revised Rule 2019 clarifies some of the ambiguities of the old rule, but uncertainty and confusion about its application remain inevitable.",
   "specific_name": "residual uncertainty after rule revision",
   "conditions": [
    "Revised Rule 2019 as effective December 1, 2011"
   ],
   "source": "Hedge Funds’ Systemic Risk Disclosures in Bankruptcy",
   "year": "2013",
   "quote": "While Revised Rule 2019 clarifies some of the ambiguities under old Rule 2019, uncertainty and confusion still seem inevitable.",
   "citation": "Wulf A. Kaal, Hedge Funds’ Systemic Risk Disclosures in Bankruptcy (2013). SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2348463"
  },
  {
   "id": "kaal:claim:2348463-014",
   "url": "https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/2348463-014",
   "claim": "The definition of representation in Revised Rule 2019 leaves it unclear whether attorneys who merely monitor a bankruptcy case for a client, without soliciting or advocating a position before the court, represent those clients for disclosure purposes.",
   "specific_name": "ambiguous definition of represents",
   "conditions": [
    "attorneys retained to monitor rather than advocate",
    "Revised Rule 2019 definitions of represents and disclosable economic interest"
   ],
   "source": "Hedge Funds’ Systemic Risk Disclosures in Bankruptcy",
   "year": "2013",
   "quote": "it is unclear if attorneys who merely monitor a bankruptcy case on behalf of a client but do not solicit or advocate a position before the bankruptcy court \"represent\" their respective clients under Revised Rule 2019.",
   "citation": "Wulf A. Kaal, Hedge Funds’ Systemic Risk Disclosures in Bankruptcy (2013). SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2348463"
  },
  {
   "id": "kaal:claim:2317580-001",
   "url": "https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/2317580-001",
   "claim": "The traditional fiduciary duty doctrine is one of the most amorphous concepts in the law, and its indeterminacy produces confusion, inconsistency, and cases with problematic outcomes.",
   "specific_name": "amorphous fiduciary duty doctrine",
   "conditions": [
    "traditional judicially developed fiduciary duty doctrine"
   ],
   "source": "The Role of Corporate Integrity Agreements in the Expansion of Fiduciary Duties",
   "year": "2013",
   "quote": "Traditional fiduciary duty doctrine is among the most amorphous concepts in the law and leads to confusion, inconsistency, and to cases with somewhat problematic outcomes.",
   "citation": "Wulf A. Kaal, Elizabeth R. Malay, The Role of Corporate Integrity Agreements in the Expansion of Fiduciary Duties (2013). SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2317580"
  },
  {
   "id": "kaal:claim:2317580-008",
   "url": "https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/2317580-008",
   "claim": "Sarbanes-Oxley and the Dodd-Frank Act have influenced and shaped fiduciary duties, but they have not necessarily improved or clarified them.",
   "specific_name": "federal statutes fail to clarify fiduciary duties",
   "conditions": [
    "federal legislative responses to financial crises"
   ],
   "source": "The Role of Corporate Integrity Agreements in the Expansion of Fiduciary Duties",
   "year": "2013",
   "quote": "The Sarbanes-Oxley Act20 and the Dodd-Frank Act have influenced and shaped fiduciary duties but have not necessarily improved and clarified them.",
   "citation": "Wulf A. Kaal, Elizabeth R. Malay, The Role of Corporate Integrity Agreements in the Expansion of Fiduciary Duties (2013). SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2317580"
  },
  {
   "id": "kaal:claim:2447306-024",
   "url": "https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/2447306-024",
   "claim": "Form PF's definition of leverage is overinclusive: respondents reported that it is inappropriately constructed and sweeps in funds that use neither leverage nor derivative securities.",
   "specific_name": "overbroad-leverage-definition",
   "conditions": [
    "responses to follow-up survey Question 6b(ii)"
   ],
   "source": "Private Fund Disclosures Under the Dodd-Frank Act",
   "year": "2014",
   "quote": "Several respondents suggested that the definition of leverage is inappropriately constructed and can include funds that don't use leverage or any derivative securities.",
   "citation": "Wulf A. Kaal, Private Fund Disclosures Under the Dodd-Frank Act (2014). SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2447306"
  },
  {
   "id": "kaal:claim:2447306-025",
   "url": "https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/2447306-025",
   "claim": "Regulatory assets under management is an unstable reporting concept: commenters split evenly on whether Form PF's RAUM questions required them to interpret the term in order to answer.",
   "specific_name": "raum-interpretive-instability",
   "conditions": [
    "responses to survey Question 19"
   ],
   "source": "Private Fund Disclosures Under the Dodd-Frank Act",
   "year": "2014",
   "quote": "Commenters were equally split on whether Form PF questions pertaining to calculating RAUM required filers to interpret RAUM for purposes of completing Form PF.",
   "citation": "Wulf A. Kaal, Private Fund Disclosures Under the Dodd-Frank Act (2014). SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2447306"
  },
  {
   "id": "kaal:claim:2447306-030",
   "url": "https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/2447306-030",
   "claim": "Regulatory flexibility can backfire: a category of respondents reported that the flexibility the SEC provides is not useful precisely because it is unclear and generates confusion.",
   "specific_name": "flexibility-breeds-confusion",
   "conditions": [
    "minority of respondents to survey Question 7a(ii)",
    "low overall response rate to this question"
   ],
   "source": "Private Fund Disclosures Under the Dodd-Frank Act",
   "year": "2014",
   "quote": "Another category of responses indicated that the flexibility provided by the SEC is not useful because it is not clear and creates confusion.",
   "citation": "Wulf A. Kaal, Private Fund Disclosures Under the Dodd-Frank Act (2014). SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2447306"
  },
  {
   "id": "kaal:claim:2470008-004",
   "url": "https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/2470008-004",
   "claim": "Even though the private fund industry broadly accepted Form PF, the form's core problems for the SEC are the ambiguity of several questions, advisers' disagreement with the definition of funds, and correspondingly insufficient SEC guidance.",
   "specific_name": "Ambiguous questions and definitions",
   "conditions": [
    "Form PF as implemented by the SEC",
    "registered private fund advisers"
   ],
   "source": "The Systemic Risk of Private Funds after the Dodd-Frank Act",
   "year": "2014",
   "quote": "the core challenges for the SEC in Form PF include: the ambiguity of several questions on Form PF, private fund advisers' disagreement with the definition of funds in Form PF and corresponding insufficiency of SEC guidance",
   "citation": "Wulf A. Kaal, The Systemic Risk of Private Funds after the Dodd-Frank Act (2014). SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2470008"
  },
  {
   "id": "kaal:claim:2470008-028",
   "url": "https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/2470008-028",
   "claim": "The substantive defects in Form PF data are the ambiguity of several key questions, inaccurate definitions paired with insufficient SEC guidance, and difficulty aggregating the required information.",
   "specific_name": "Ambiguity, bad definitions, aggregation difficulty",
   "conditions": [
    "Form PF as filed by private fund advisers"
   ],
   "source": "The Systemic Risk of Private Funds after the Dodd-Frank Act",
   "year": "2014",
   "quote": "Core substantive issues with Form PF include: the ambiguity of several key questions on Form PF, the inaccuracy of Form PF definitions and corresponding insufficiency of SEC guidance for Form PF, and difficulties in aggregating the required Form PF information.",
   "citation": "Wulf A. Kaal, The Systemic Risk of Private Funds after the Dodd-Frank Act (2014). SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2470008"
  },
  {
   "id": "kaal:claim:2470008-029",
   "url": "https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/2470008-029",
   "claim": "More than forty percent of respondents in a prior study disagreed with the definitions or instructions in Form PF.",
   "specific_name": "Widespread filer disagreement with definitions",
   "conditions": [
    "survey respondents in the author's prior private fund disclosure study"
   ],
   "source": "The Systemic Risk of Private Funds after the Dodd-Frank Act",
   "year": "2014",
   "quote": "Over forty percent of respondents in a prior study suggested that they disagreed with definitions or instructions in Form PF.",
   "citation": "Wulf A. Kaal, The Systemic Risk of Private Funds after the Dodd-Frank Act (2014). SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2470008"
  },
  {
   "id": "kaal:claim:2470008-030",
   "url": "https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/2470008-030",
   "claim": "The Form PF definition of Regulatory Assets under Management is the leading example of a definition that forced filers to interpret what they were required to report.",
   "specific_name": "RAUM definition requires filer interpretation",
   "conditions": [
    "RAUM reporting under Form PF"
   ],
   "source": "The Systemic Risk of Private Funds after the Dodd-Frank Act",
   "year": "2014",
   "quote": "Especially the definition of Regulatory Assets under Management (RAUM), as required by Form PF, required filers to interpret what they were required to report.",
   "citation": "Wulf A. Kaal, The Systemic Risk of Private Funds after the Dodd-Frank Act (2014). SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2470008"
  },
  {
   "id": "kaal:claim:2470008-031",
   "url": "https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/2470008-031",
   "claim": "The interpretation Form PF demands generated particular concern among filers about the definition of counterparties and about counterparty performance measures.",
   "specific_name": "Counterparty definitions unclear to filers",
   "conditions": [
    "Form PF counterparty reporting items"
   ],
   "source": "The Systemic Risk of Private Funds after the Dodd-Frank Act",
   "year": "2014",
   "quote": "The level of interpretation required to answer Form PF precipitated particular concerns among filers pertaining to the definition of counterparties and performance measures for counterparties in Form PF.",
   "citation": "Wulf A. Kaal, The Systemic Risk of Private Funds after the Dodd-Frank Act (2014). SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2470008"
  },
  {
   "id": "kaal:claim:2470008-034",
   "url": "https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/2470008-034",
   "claim": "Because the FSOC uses RAUM related valuations directly and indirectly to set stage one thresholds, and because RAUM requires substantial filer interpretation, it is questionable whether the FSOC can use that Form PF data effectively and sustainably for systemic risk evaluations and SIFI designations.",
   "specific_name": "Interpretation dependent RAUM drives thresholds",
   "conditions": [
    "stage one thresholds computed from RAUM related asset valuations",
    "Form PF Questions 8, 9, 13, 44, 46, and 58"
   ],
   "source": "The Systemic Risk of Private Funds after the Dodd-Frank Act",
   "year": "2014",
   "quote": "it seems at least questionable if FSOC will be able to use the related Form PF data effectively and sustainably for its systemic risk evaluations and the designation of non-bank financial companies as systemically risky",
   "citation": "Wulf A. Kaal, The Systemic Risk of Private Funds after the Dodd-Frank Act (2014). SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2470008"
  },
  {
   "id": "kaal:claim:2811718-013",
   "url": "https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/2811718-013",
   "claim": "The Form ADV analysis is limited because the term due diligence carries multiple possible meanings, so counts of the term cannot by themselves distinguish among those meanings.",
   "specific_name": "term ambiguity limits keyword measurement",
   "conditions": [
    "keyword based counting of the phrase due diligence in Form ADV II filings"
   ],
   "source": "Private Fund Investor Due Diligence – Evidence from 1995 to 2015",
   "year": "2016",
   "quote": "The data analysis in Figures 1 and 2 is limited by multiple possible meanings of the term due diligence.",
   "citation": "Wulf A. Kaal, Private Fund Investor Due Diligence – Evidence from 1995 to 2015 (2016). SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2811718"
  },
  {
   "id": "kaal:claim:2811718-034",
   "url": "https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/2811718-034",
   "claim": "The legal standards applicable to private fund investor due diligence are somewhat inconsistent and suboptimal and merit clarification.",
   "specific_name": "inconsistent legal standards",
   "conditions": [
    "United States case law from 1995 to 2015"
   ],
   "source": "Private Fund Investor Due Diligence – Evidence from 1995 to 2015",
   "year": "2016",
   "quote": "This study has demonstrated that the legal standards applicable to private fund IDD are somewhat inconsistent and suboptimal, and merit clarification.",
   "citation": "Wulf A. Kaal, Private Fund Investor Due Diligence – Evidence from 1995 to 2015 (2016). SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2811718"
  },
  {
   "id": "kaal:claim:2714974-006",
   "url": "https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/2714974-006",
   "claim": "The SEC's 2004 hedge fund adviser registration rule failed in court because the agency lacked authority to define the term client, which the Investment Advisers Act had not otherwise defined, and the D.C. Circuit in Goldstein vacated the rule as arbitrary rulemaking.",
   "specific_name": "Undefined statutory term defeats agency rulemaking",
   "conditions": [
    "applies to rulemaking under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940"
   ],
   "source": "The History of Hedge Fund Regulation in the United States",
   "year": "2016",
   "quote": "Because the term \"client\" had not otherwise been defined in the Investment Advisers Act, the SEC had no authority to determine the meaning of the term.",
   "citation": "Kaal and Oesterle, The History of Hedge Fund Regulation in the United States (2016). SSRN: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2714974"
  },
  {
   "id": "kaal:claim:2714974-012",
   "url": "https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/2714974-012",
   "claim": "The most pressing problem with Form PF identified by the majority of SEC registered hedge fund advisers is not the volume of data but the ambiguity of the data reporting requirements themselves.",
   "specific_name": "Ambiguous reporting requirements",
   "conditions": [
    "based on survey responses from SEC registered hedge fund advisers"
   ],
   "source": "The History of Hedge Fund Regulation in the United States",
   "year": "2016",
   "quote": "The majority of SEC-registered hedge fund advisers identified the ambiguity of Form PF data reporting requirements as the most pressing issue (Kaal 2016b).",
   "citation": "Kaal and Oesterle, The History of Hedge Fund Regulation in the United States (2016). SSRN: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2714974"
  },
  {
   "id": "kaal:claim:2714974-018",
   "url": "https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/2714974-018",
   "claim": "New Rule 506(c) creates uncertainty for hedge fund advisers considering general solicitation and general advertising, because the SEC required reasonable steps to verify accreditation without supplying a bright line rule for the content of such solicitation.",
   "specific_name": "Absence of bright line verification standard",
   "conditions": [
    "applies to Regulation D offerings under Rule 506(c) after September 23, 2013"
   ],
   "source": "The History of Hedge Fund Regulation in the United States",
   "year": "2016",
   "quote": "New Rule 506(c) creates uncertainty for hedge fund advisers considering GSGA.",
   "citation": "Kaal and Oesterle, The History of Hedge Fund Regulation in the United States (2016). SSRN: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2714974"
  },
  {
   "id": "kaal:claim:2714974-021",
   "url": "https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/2714974-021",
   "claim": "Until the SEC finalizes verification rules and gives a clear, comprehensive definition of the reasonable steps an issuer must take, issuers cannot determine at the time of sale whether their verification attempts made general solicitation permissible.",
   "specific_name": "Indeterminate reasonable steps standard",
   "conditions": [
    "conditional on the absence of finalized SEC verification guidance"
   ],
   "source": "The History of Hedge Fund Regulation in the United States",
   "year": "2016",
   "quote": "Without appropriate SEC guidance, issuers will have difficulty ascertaining if their verification attempts at the time of the sale of securities made GSGA permissible.",
   "citation": "Kaal and Oesterle, The History of Hedge Fund Regulation in the United States (2016). SSRN: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2714974"
  },
  {
   "id": "kaal:claim:2998097-002",
   "url": "https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/2998097-002",
   "claim": "The 2004 registration rule failed in court because the term client was not defined in the Investment Advisers Act, leaving the SEC without authority to fix its meaning, and the D.C. Circuit vacated the rule in Goldstein as arbitrary rulemaking.",
   "specific_name": "Undefined statutory term defeats agency rulemaking",
   "conditions": [
    "United States",
    "Goldstein v. SEC, July 2006"
   ],
   "source": "Private Investment Fund Regulation - Theory and Empirical Evidence from 1998 to 2016",
   "year": "2017",
   "quote": "Because the term \"client\" had not otherwise been defined in the Investment Advisers Act, the SEC had no authority to determine the meaning of the term.",
   "citation": "Wulf A. Kaal, Private Investment Fund Regulation - Theory and Empirical Evidence from 1998 to 2016 (2017). SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2998097"
  },
  {
   "id": "kaal:claim:2998097-023",
   "url": "https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/2998097-023",
   "claim": "Form PF data suffer from core shortcomings: ambiguity in several key questions, inaccurate definitions with correspondingly insufficient SEC guidance, and difficulty aggregating the required information.",
   "specific_name": "Form PF design defects",
   "conditions": [
    "Form PF as implemented after the Dodd-Frank Act"
   ],
   "source": "Private Investment Fund Regulation - Theory and Empirical Evidence from 1998 to 2016",
   "year": "2017",
   "quote": "These included: the ambiguity of several key questions on Form PF, the inaccuracy of Form PF definitions and the corresponding insufficiency of SEC guidance for Form PF, and difficulties in aggregating the required Form PF information.",
   "citation": "Wulf A. Kaal, Private Investment Fund Regulation - Theory and Empirical Evidence from 1998 to 2016 (2017). SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2998097"
  },
  {
   "id": "kaal:claim:2998097-024",
   "url": "https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/2998097-024",
   "claim": "Several core Form PF questions that feed the FSOC's stage one threshold assessment are defective, most importantly because the definition of RAUM required substantive interpretation by the filers themselves.",
   "specific_name": "Interpretive slack in RAUM propagates into designation thresholds",
   "conditions": [
    "FSOC stage one threshold assessment",
    "Form PF valuation questions tied to RAUM"
   ],
   "source": "Private Investment Fund Regulation - Theory and Empirical Evidence from 1998 to 2016",
   "year": "2017",
   "quote": "Several core Form PF questions that provide specific information for FSOC's stage one threshold assessment encounter problems. More specifically, the definition of RAUM required substantive interpretation by filers.",
   "citation": "Wulf A. Kaal, Private Investment Fund Regulation - Theory and Empirical Evidence from 1998 to 2016 (2017). SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2998097"
  },
  {
   "id": "kaal:claim:2834531-009",
   "url": "https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/2834531-009",
   "claim": "Because technological transition is becoming a permanent state rather than an episode, rulemakers' inability to address the regulatory issues created by disruptive innovation will generate high levels of legal uncertainty and inconsistency.",
   "specific_name": "uncertainty from permanent transition",
   "conditions": [
    "age of continuous disruptive innovation",
    "existing rulemaking framework"
   ],
   "source": "Regulation Tomorrow What Happens When Technology Is Faster Than the Law",
   "year": "2017",
   "quote": "technological transition is going to be a permanent state in the age of disruptive innovation, rulemakers' inability to address regulatory issues associated with disruptive innovation will likely generate high levels of legal uncertainty and inconsistency",
   "citation": "Mark Fenwick, Wulf A. Kaal, Erik P. M. Vermeulen, Regulation Tomorrow What Happens When Technology Is Faster Than the Law (2017). SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2834531"
  },
  {
   "id": "kaal:claim:2834531-040",
   "url": "https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/2834531-040",
   "claim": "The principle based approach has a shortcoming the authors concede: it is usually impossible to comply with principles that could change after the fact, and the approach may let regulators promulgate fact based laws and rules through the backdoor.",
   "specific_name": "principles that change after the fact",
   "conditions": [
    "from the perspective of regulated companies operating under principles"
   ],
   "source": "Regulation Tomorrow What Happens When Technology Is Faster Than the Law",
   "year": "2017",
   "quote": "The argument is that it is usually impossible to comply with principles that could change \"after the fact.\"107 That is to say, a principle–based approach may facilitate policy makers, lawmakers, and regulators in promulgating facts–based laws and rules through the backdoor.",
   "citation": "Mark Fenwick, Wulf A. Kaal, Erik P. M. Vermeulen, Regulation Tomorrow What Happens When Technology Is Faster Than the Law (2017). SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2834531"
  },
  {
   "id": "kaal:claim:2922176-017",
   "url": "https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/2922176-017",
   "claim": "Code guidance assigning the board responsibility for long-term value creation, as in the 2016 Dutch Corporate Governance Code, is difficult to implement because neither long-term value nor the intended beneficiary of that value is defined.",
   "specific_name": "undefined long-term value",
   "conditions": [
    "Dutch Corporate Governance Code, December 2016"
   ],
   "source": "The ‘Unmediated’ and ‘Tech-Driven’ Corporate Governance of Today's Winning Companies",
   "year": "2017",
   "quote": "Implementation of such code guidance is rather difficult in practice as definitions of long-term value, and the beneficiary of the value creation, are unclear.",
   "citation": "Mark Fenwick, Wulf A. Kaal, Erik P. M. Vermeulen, The ‘Unmediated’ and ‘Tech-Driven’ Corporate Governance of Today's Winning Companies (2017). SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2922176"
  },
  {
   "id": "kaal:claim:3249860-024",
   "url": "https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/3249860-024",
   "claim": "The utility token model dominates the top 100 tokens, but the utility category as coded includes tokens that behave like a security, and no Howey test was performed in this research.",
   "specific_name": "unresolved-security-classification",
   "conditions": [
    "N=100 dataset",
    "utility category aggregates network, network value, usage, and work token subtypes"
   ],
   "source": "Crypto Economics - The Top 100 Token Models Compared",
   "year": "2018",
   "quote": "attributes: tokens offer owners clearly defined utility within a network or application (utility tokens); tokens that behave like a security, although no Howey test was performed in this research;",
   "citation": "Wulf A. Kaal, Crypto Economics - The Top 100 Token Models Compared (2018). SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3249860"
  },
  {
   "id": "kaal:claim:3249860-025",
   "url": "https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/3249860-025",
   "claim": "Seven of the top 100 tokens could not be classified into any token model, with NEM, VeChain, ICON, and Lisk qualifying as outliers with no justification and SUB's whitepaper failing to disclose which model best describes the token.",
   "specific_name": "unclassifiable-token-model",
   "conditions": [
    "N=100 dataset",
    "classification based on issuer whitepapers"
   ],
   "source": "Crypto Economics - The Top 100 Token Models Compared",
   "year": "2018",
   "quote": "Seven tokens were outliers. NEO is a network enabling creation of asset-backed smart contracts.18 NEM, VeChain, ICON, Lisk were outliers with no justification. It was not clear in the whitepaper of SUB what token model type best describes the token.",
   "citation": "Wulf A. Kaal, Crypto Economics - The Top 100 Token Models Compared (2018). SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3249860"
  },
  {
   "id": "kaal:claim:3782191-006",
   "url": "https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/3782191-006",
   "claim": "Defining decentralization through historically formed centralized perspectives is a contradiction in terms that undermines its true potential and limits the scope and scale of decentralized approaches.",
   "specific_name": "centralized-framing-of-decentralization",
   "conditions": [
    "when centralized concepts are used as the frame for defining decentralization"
   ],
   "source": "Preface to",
   "year": "2021",
   "quote": "Defining decentralization through historically formed centralized perspectives is a contradiction in terms. It undermines the true potential of decentralization.",
   "citation": "Craig Calcaterra, Wulf A. Kaal, Preface to (2021). SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3782191"
  },
  {
   "id": "kaal:claim:3782191-024",
   "url": "https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/3782191-024",
   "claim": "The widely reproduced diagram contrasting centralized, decentralized, and distributed networks is a shallow and wrong answer to what decentralization means, because decentralized networks are always distributed while distributed networks may or may not be under centralized control, so distributed does not belong in the comparison.",
   "specific_name": "distributed-decentralized-conflation",
   "conditions": [
    "explanations of distributed computing, blockchain, and Web3"
   ],
   "source": "Preface to",
   "year": "2021",
   "quote": "Decentralized networks are always distributed; distributed networks may or may not be under centralized control. So \"distributed\" doesn't even belong in the same image.",
   "citation": "Craig Calcaterra, Wulf A. Kaal, Preface to (2021). SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3782191"
  },
  {
   "id": "kaal:claim:3782220-022",
   "url": "https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/3782220-022",
   "claim": "Drawing a clear formal line between where individual rights stop and social responsibilities start makes the system brittle and unstable by turning that line into a focal point for competition, so the line between the two values must remain vague.",
   "specific_name": "brittle formal boundary",
   "conditions": [
    "values in genuine tension such as freedom and equality"
   ],
   "source": "The Importance of Transcendental Unifying Values for Decentralization",
   "year": "2021",
   "quote": "If we were to make a clear distinction between where our individual rights stop and social respon- sibilities start, then that formal line becomes a focal point for competition which makes the system brittle and unstable. Instead the line between the two values must remain vague.",
   "citation": "Craig Calcaterra, Wulf A. Kaal, The Importance of Transcendental Unifying Values for Decentralization (2021). SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3782220"
  },
  {
   "id": "kaal:claim:4033886-018",
   "url": "https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/4033886-018",
   "claim": "Stocks and cryptocurrencies look similar enough, both traded on markets at fluctuating prices, to invite similar regulation, but they diverge in their potential for abuse, their nature, their acceptance, and their use.",
   "specific_name": "false equivalence with equities",
   "conditions": [
    "comparison of listed equities and cryptocurrencies"
   ],
   "source": "Digital Asset Valuation",
   "year": "2022",
   "quote": "Stocks and cryptocurrencies are both traded on markets, with fluctuating prices, and seem similar enough in context to warrant similar regulation, yet they differ in their potential for abuse, their nature, acceptance, and use.64",
   "citation": "Wulf A. Kaal, Samuel Evans, Hayley Howe, Digital Asset Valuation (2022). SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4033886"
  },
  {
   "id": "kaal:claim:4021599-001",
   "url": "https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/4021599-001",
   "claim": "The absence of clearly defined technology features for blockchain, distributed ledger, and associated terms propagates outward, producing knock-on definitional problems in other parts of the blockchain ecosystem.",
   "specific_name": "definitional-contagion",
   "conditions": [
    "blockchain and distributed ledger terminology remains undefined"
   ],
   "source": "Securities Versus Utility Tokens",
   "year": "2022",
   "quote": "The lack of clearly defined technology features pertaining to blockchain technology, distributed ledger, and other associated terms has knock-on effects on other parts of the blockchain ecosystem.",
   "citation": "Wulf A. Kaal, Securities Versus Utility Tokens (2022). SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4021599"
  },
  {
   "id": "kaal:claim:4021599-003",
   "url": "https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/4021599-003",
   "claim": "The core distinguishing features of blockchain technology are only generically definitional: they characterize the technology as a class but supply no specific definitions usable for classification.",
   "specific_name": "generic-features-no-specific-definition",
   "conditions": [],
   "source": "Securities Versus Utility Tokens",
   "year": "2022",
   "quote": "The core distinguishing features of blockchain technology help define the technology generically but provide no specific definitions. For example, the technology's distributed consensus",
   "citation": "Wulf A. Kaal, Securities Versus Utility Tokens (2022). SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4021599"
  },
  {
   "id": "kaal:claim:4021599-006",
   "url": "https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/4021599-006",
   "claim": "The lack of a clearly delineated nomenclature for the term securities token has produced divergent uses and interpretations of that term, especially in relation to the term utility token.",
   "specific_name": "undefined-securities-token-nomenclature",
   "conditions": [
    "United States digital asset markets as of 2022"
   ],
   "source": "Securities Versus Utility Tokens",
   "year": "2022",
   "quote": "The lack of a clearly delineated nomenclature for the term \"securities token\" resulted in various uses and interpretations of the term securities token, especially vis-à-vis the term \"utility token.\"",
   "citation": "Wulf A. Kaal, Securities Versus Utility Tokens (2022). SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4021599"
  },
  {
   "id": "kaal:claim:4021599-008",
   "url": "https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/4021599-008",
   "claim": "The boundaries between the different types of tokens are regularly blurred, so the securities token versus utility token distinction functions as a typical case distinction rather than a clean partition.",
   "specific_name": "blurred-token-category-lines",
   "conditions": [],
   "source": "Securities Versus Utility Tokens",
   "year": "2022",
   "quote": "While the lines between the different types of tokens are blurred regularly,9 securities token are typically investment contracts,",
   "citation": "Wulf A. Kaal, Securities Versus Utility Tokens (2022). SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4021599"
  },
  {
   "id": "kaal:claim:4021599-021",
   "url": "https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/4021599-021",
   "claim": "Merely calling a token a utility token, or structuring it so that it provides some utility, does not prevent the token from being characterized as a security.",
   "specific_name": "utility-label-does-not-defeat-security-status",
   "conditions": [
    "United States regulatory characterization"
   ],
   "source": "Securities Versus Utility Tokens",
   "year": "2022",
   "quote": "From a regulatory perspective, merely calling a token a utility token or structuring it to provide some utility does not prevent the token from being characterized as a security.34 According to SEC",
   "citation": "Wulf A. Kaal, Securities Versus Utility Tokens (2022). SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4021599"
  },
  {
   "id": "kaal:claim:5095633-005",
   "url": "https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/5095633-005",
   "claim": "The current data production market cannot scale or sustain a high-quality text supply because content creators face limited incentives and no direct compensation structures.",
   "specific_name": "uncompensated creator supply failure",
   "conditions": [
    "market as currently structured around platforms and content aggregators"
   ],
   "source": "Artificial Intelligence The Final Frontier",
   "year": "2025",
   "quote": "the limited incentives and lack of direct compensation structures for content creators present significant obstacles to scaling and sustaining high- quality data supply.",
   "citation": "Wulf A. Kaal, Artificial Intelligence The Final Frontier (2025). SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=5095633"
  },
  {
   "id": "kaal:claim:5454054-029",
   "url": "https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/5454054-029",
   "claim": "BaFin applies substance over form, so transferable, tradable, or profit-oriented reward units risk classification as crypto-assets or financial instruments in Germany, potentially triggering licensing obligations such as crypto custody or proprietary trading.",
   "specific_name": "BaFin substance over form reclassification",
   "conditions": [
    "Germany",
    "reward units that are transferable, tradable, or profit-oriented"
   ],
   "source": "Liquid Equity Rewards",
   "year": "2025",
   "quote": "BaFin applies substance-over-form. This means that transferable, tradable, or profit-oriented reward units risk classification as crypto-assets/financial instruments, potentially implicating licensing (e.g., crypto custody, proprietary trading).",
   "citation": "Wulf A. Kaal, Liquid Equity Rewards (2025). SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=5454054"
  }
 ]
}