Odaily News In response to a recent U.S. judge's dismissal of the SEC's allegations regarding Binance's BNB secondary sales and Simple Earn, John Reed Stark, former director of the U.S. SEC's Office of Internet Enforcement, posted on the X platform that the burden of proof is always on the SEC to prove that a product is a security. He pointed out that the judge only asked the SEC to prove that people who bought Binance products were "investors" who bought Binance products because they hoped that prices would rise, rather than "customers" who bought Binance products because the products provided some kind of utility (such as trading discounts). According to the judge, if a digital asset security is somehow transformed into a utility tool rather than an investment speculation tool, then it is "no longer a security." It is worth noting that the judge explicitly rejected the puzzling finding in the Ripple ruling that in the secondary market, there must be some kind of contractual relationship between investors and issuers to trigger the registration requirement, a conclusion that has never been adopted or even cited in any form by other regional courts. Considering Binance's main business line, I don't think this decision is any good for Binance, any positive impact on the digital asset industry, or any good for digital asset investors.