SEC commissioners Hester Peirce and Mark Uyeda disagreed with the SEC’s decision, arguing that the promises made in this case did not form an investment contract. They also noted that the SEC doesn’t usually take action against sellers of items like watches or collectibles that promise to enhance their brand’s value.

Many community members expressed concerns that the SEC’s move could affect numerous NFT projects that share similarities with the case. Some NFT projects encourage buyers by promising future profits as the project succeeds, similar to Impact Theory.

Oscar Franklin Tan, the chief legal officer of NFT platform Enjin, commented on the situation, saying that labeling all NFTs as securities is problematic. He emphasized that NFTs encompass a wide range of meanings and uses, from graphics to health records to land titles. Tan stressed that such regulatory uncertainty might discourage creators from exploring the full potential of Web3 models.

Tan also called for clearer regulatory guidelines from the SEC to avoid hindering creators from experimenting with various Web3 models. He highlighted the importance of allowing creators to innovate without the constant concern of accidentally creating investment products.

This incident isn’t the first time NFTs have been questioned as securities. Earlier this year, a U.S. judge suggested that NBA Top Shot NFTs might be considered securities due to their potential to establish an investment contract between investors and promoters.