unfortunately this is pure race to the bottom stuff that makes no sense from a policy perspective the fewer rights people have, the less regulated something is? it should be the opposite--if they have more rights, they are more protected under general contract law and there is less need for regulation. . . this is how you get pure memecoin mania forever, equity/token conflict of interest forever, etc.. . . the House approach is far superior
Dan Robinson
Dan Robinson10 tuntia sitten
We sent a letter this week to the Senate Banking Committee, in response to their draft of crypto market structure legislation. On the critical question of which tokens should be regulated as securities, the Senate's draft takes a very different approach from the CLARITY Act that was already passed in the House. We think the Senate's approach—"ancillary assets"—is better for crypto. While both bills are an improvement on the Howey-based regime—which is notoriously difficult to apply and creates toxic perverse incentives for issuers—the Senate draft is significantly simpler, and avoids forcing decentralized tokens and protocols to fit themselves into an inflexible legislative framework. Instead, it protects against abuse with a simple exclusion—assets that come with legal rights to specified financial interests do not qualify as ancillary assets. As we explain in the letter, we think this is the cleanest test that protects decentralized crypto assets while preventing traditional securities issuers from improperly taking advantage of this framework.
6,01K