As a seasoned crypto investor with over a decade of experience navigating the ever-evolving digital asset market, I find myself both intrigued and somewhat exasperated by the ongoing regulatory dance between industry players and the SEC, particularly under the leadership of Gary Gensler.
In simpler terms, Gary Gensler reinforced the Securities and Exchange Commission’s stance on Bitcoin and criticized the cryptocurrency sector yet again due to a high level of disregard for compliance regulations.
On Thursday, September 26th, Gary Gensler, chairman of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), stated during an interview on CNBC’s Squawk Box that Bitcoin (BTC) is not considered a security by the SEC. This isn’t the first time the SEC has shown regulatory acceptance for crypto’s primary token, as SEC documents have previously classified Bitcoin as a non-security commodity with a market value of approximately $1.2 trillion.
During Chair Gensler’s tenure, the regulatory body has given the green light to approximately ten Bitcoin spot exchange-traded funds, and it has welcomed the use of Bitcoin on American exchanges such as Nasdaq.
In a manner analogous to Ethereum (ETH) exchange-traded funds, approval was given, yet the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has implemented an unorthodox strategy regarding the second-largest cryptocurrency. The SEC has initiated numerous probes into Ethereum service providers such as Consensys, Uniswap, and other major crypto intermediaries like Coinbase.
The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), led by Chairman Gensler, has neither categorized Ethereum as a security or non-security. Instead, they are applying federal regulations to those involved in the Ethereum system.
As a researcher, I’ve noticed that my work on digital assets has been met with criticism from U.S. policymakers, particularly those in the House of Representatives. They argue that I’ve contributed to industry confusion by employing unconventional terms such as “crypto asset security” in significant legal proceedings.
This past week, Gensler faced criticism at a congressional hearing with all five SEC commissioners, where he was accused of hindering progress in blockchain technology and causing chaos within the cryptocurrency market.
During the hearing and CNBC interview, Gensler consistently emphasized concerns about non-adherence to regulations and insufficient disclosures within the cryptocurrency sector. He asserted that guidelines for this industry already exist, yet participants have chosen to overlook established policies and request preferential treatment instead.
@GaryGensler states, ‘Disliking the regulations doesn’t mean they don’t exist,’ regarding cryptocurrency regulation. He suggests that while many have capitalized on public interest in this area, they’ve done so without providing necessary disclosures.
— Squawk Box (@SquawkCNBC) September 26, 2024
His testimony and statements contradicted remarks from Robinhood Markets lead attorney Dan Gallagher. Speaking at a separate hearing last week, Gallagher claimed that the commission was largely non-responsive to Robinhood’s registration attempts.
As a crypto investor, I’ve found myself growing increasingly concerned about the inconsistent response from the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) regarding feedback or lack thereof on certain cases. Former employee Gallagher has shed light on this issue, revealing instances where the agency staff delayed feedback or neglected to respond altogether. Even Commissioner Hester Peirce has hinted at similar occurrences within the regulator, expressing agreement with Gallagher’s opinion that Congress should intervene to address the policy gap stemming from the SEC’s purposeful inaction.
Read More
Sorry. No data so far.
2024-09-26 19:52