Waging War on Crypto: SEC Rules Under Fire
According to recent news, Industry leaders have questioned the significance and validity of the U.S. securities regulator’s plan to broaden custody restrictions. It seems like a Waging War on Crypto.
The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) received a letter from the crypto industry’s advocacy group Blockchain Association on 8 May. This letter aims to criticize the plan to modify the custody requirement.
- The industry leader criticized the validity and significance of U.S. Securities plans to broaden custody restrictions.
- Andreessen Horowitz (a16z) sent the same letter to criticize the plan for custody requirement modifications.
- This letter referred to a ban on adviser trading cryptocurrency on centralized exchanges.
- Gensler claimed that some crypto trading platforms providing custody services are not legally certified custodians.
- Commissioner Hester Pierce criticized the scope and viability of the rules.
According to newly filed letters, at least two industry supporters oppose the U.S. securities regulator’s plan to tighten crypto custody regulations. Andreessen Horowitz (a16z), a Web3 venture capitalist, sent the same letter three days ago.
Waging War on Crypto
The Blockchain Association provided various justifications in its letter to the SEC to counter them. It asserted, among other statements, that the regulations exceeded the authority of the SEC. It puts investors’ assets in danger and prevents advisers from transacting with cryptocurrency exchanges.
A16Z presented the same points in its letter. But it paid greater attention to its impact on the registered investment adviser. It referred to the ban on advisers trading cryptocurrency on centralized exchanges as unlawful, harmful, and impractical.
The SEC has not yet authorized the February plans. These plans would impose stricter regulations on financial advisers in the asset’s custody, including cryptocurrency.
Companies would have to properly separate their assets between various transparency requirements. The custodians would need to submit to yearly audits by public accountants.
Gensler is hitting cryptocurrency exchanges directly with the rule, claiming that some crypto trading platforms providing custody services are not legally certified custodians.
Although the SEC opposed the plan, Commissioner Hester Pierce targeted cryptocurrencies and firms associated with cryptocurrencies. Additionally, he criticized the scope and viability of the rules.
Reaction of Crypto Titans to Waging War on Crypto
Onskow.NFT announced on Twitter that in the cryptocurrency industry, two significant stakeholders explain the consequences, legality, and impracticability of the SEC plan to broaden its custody regulations.
Bitcoin Sahi Hai announced on Twitter that Newly submitted letters criticize the SEC custody regulations.
Wen3 announced on Twitter that Industry leaders had questioned the significance and validity of the U.S. securities regulator’s plan to broaden custody restrictions.
Do You Know?
- The proposed SEC custody rules are causing a stir in the crypto community, with many individuals and organizations voicing their opposition and calling for changes to the regulations.
- The opposition to the proposed regulations is bipartisan and includes members of Congress, government agencies, and crypto advocacy groups.
- The proposed rules could have a significant impact on crypto exchanges and the crypto industry as a whole, as they would require these entities to register as custodians or face civil penalties.
- The proposed regulations could also make it more difficult for crypto companies to obtain capital, as it would require them to meet SEC requirements.
- Even if the proposed regulations are not implemented, they could still have a chilling effect on the development of the crypto industry by creating fear and uncertainty.
The industry leader criticized the validity and significance of the U.S. securities regulator’s plan on 8 May. This plan aims to broaden custody restrictions. Three days ago, Andreessen Horowitz (a16z) sent the same letter, but it paid greater focus to its impact on the registered investment advisers