This occurred in order to deprecate an old tokenomic model which was put in place after the ICO called the Stability Fund. This was designed as a backup liquidity source for ticketeers to source their $GET in the event of insufficient liquidity on the open market.
During 2021, the Stability Fund was deemed unnecessary as open market liquidity and accessibility of current DEX platforms have resulted in a more than sufficient open market sourcing experience. In order to stay true to our word that this fund would not touch the circulating supply, it was decided that a burn would be conducted.
The total supply is fixed, after the burn was conducted there can never be more than 23,368,773 tokens in circulation.
The ICOincluded a security audit which was conducted by Matthew Di Ferrante, founder of ZK Labs. They are a leading smart contract development & auditing firm that have conducted audits for many crypto projects including the likes of Polkadot and Enjin. More information on the audit available in this PDF.
What is the regulatory status of the $GET token?
From GET Protocol's inception onwards, we've made it a priority to ensure that the project is compliant to regulatory and legal rules. In order to ensure that these checks were carried out as fairly and unbiased as possible, we hired the services of an independant Dutch law firm, De Roos Advocaten to conduct a Howey Test.
The Howey Test was created by the US Supreme Court in order to determine whether certain transactions qualify as "investment contracts", a.k.a "securities".
De Roos Advocaten concluded, that if the SEC would make the case that $GET is a security, they would have a difficult time making a legal argument for this claim. The Roos argues that $GET has the attributes of a utility and was marketed as such.
The $GET token passed the Howey Test conducted by De Roos Advocaten and therefore the token will likely be considered a utility and NOT a security.
This conclusion is based upon the tokens functionalities and role of the token within GET Protocol.
In case the asset would be evaluated by the US supreme court (i.e. challenged by the SEC) the law firm states it would be highly unlikely that the offering would be considered an offering of a security.