John Reed Stark, a former SEC chairperson, says the burden of proof is always on the SEC to prove that a product is a security. As far as I know, judges only ask the SEC to prove that people who buy Binance products are "investors" who buy Binance products because they want prices to go up, not "customers" who buy Binance products because the products offer some utility (such as a trading discount). According to the judge, a digital asset security "ceases to be a security" if it is somehow transformed into a utility rather than an investment speculative vehicle. Notably, the judge explicitly rejected the perplexing finding in Ripple's ruling that there must be some kind of contractual relationship between an investor and an issuer in a secondary market to trigger the registration requirement, a conclusion that no other district court has ever adopted or even cited in any form of support.