Can tokens created without virtual asset advisory become subject to regulation later?

If you issue tokens without virtual asset advisory, problems with violation of the Capital Markets Act may arise due to errors in determining securities nature.

In virtual asset advisory, it is key to review in advance whether the token is a digital asset or a financial investment product corresponding to an investment contract security.

First, when the token structure includes profit expectation elements.

If a structure is included where token value can rise or economic benefits can occur depending on business performance, it is highly likely to be judged as an investment contract security.

In this case, public offering regulations and securities filing obligations may arise, and there is a possibility of becoming subject to sanctions for unauthorized public offering.

Second, the method of investment solicitation.

When inducing investors through whitepapers, websites, SNS, etc., it can be interpreted as investment solicitation rather than simple project guidance.

In this case, it can be problematic as illegal investment solicitation, and Capital Markets Act violation risks may arise.

Third, post-dispute risks.

If investors suffer losses, if whitepaper content or promotional phrases are interpreted as investment inducement or deception elements, it can lead to civil and criminal liability.

For these reasons, the process of inspecting and supplementing the structure of the token's legal nature, distribution structure, and investment inducement elements in advance is undertaken.

If you proceed with issuance without going through this, larger costs and risks may arise in subsequent regulatory response or structural modification.

Therefore, virtual asset advisory is not optional but an essential procedure to control legal risks at the early stage, and it is important to review regulatory applicability in advance through virtual asset advisory.