The US Securities and Exchange Commission has settled charges against the defunct ICO review site Coinschedule.com for violating the anti-tender provisions of the securities laws.

However, two SEC commissioners replied in an open letter that the settlement revealed flaws in the Commission’s process.

Coinschedule has not disclosed that it will receive compensation from digital asset issuers for positive reviews, according to a July 14 notice from the securities regulator.

The terms of the settlement state that Blotics, formerly known as Coinschedule, must pay a fine of $ 154,434 plus $ 43,000 in refund plus interest, without admitting or contesting the results of the SEC.

The website was operational from 2016 to 2019 and many visitors came from the United States. The website, which has provided “trust scores” to over 2,500 ICOs, claims to assess the “trust” and “operational risk” of each proposal using a “proprietary algorithm”. However, according to the SEC:

“Actually, token issuers paid Coinschedule to profile their token offerings on Coinschedule.com, a fact that Coinschedule did not reveal to visitors.”

The SEC stressed that after the 2017 DAO report was released, Coinschedule continued to publish ICO reviews – warning that ICOs can be securities and therefore those promoting the Initial Coin Offering must comply with federal securities laws.

Kristina Littman, director of the SEC Enforcement Division’s cyber unit, said it was forbidden to take money for cheap securities insurance: “Securities law prohibits the offering of securities for compensation without adequate disclosure. The suitability for investors is clear and long – term. “

Connected: Rapper The Game, along with enforcers, faces a $ 12 million prison sentence in the ICO case

However, not everyone at the SEC was happy with the closure of the case, as SEC Commissioners Hester Peirce and Elad Roisman wrote a letter criticizing the commission for failing to declare the assets – each digital asset touted by Coinschedule is actually a security.

The commissioners described this failure as “symptomatic of our unwillingness to provide further guidance on how to determine whether tokens are being sold as part of a security or a token offering. Securities are. “

“Market participants lacked clarity regarding the application of securities laws to digital assets and their transactions, as evidenced by the requests we received from each of us for clarity and consistent contact with Commission staff for no further action and remedial action. “