• Markets
  • Crypto
  • Web3
  • Culture
  • Opinion
  • Politics
Subscribe
  • Login
  • Register
No Result
View All Result
  • Markets
  • Crypto
  • Web3
  • Culture
  • Opinion
  • Politics
No Result
View All Result
No Result
View All Result

No ETF, No ICOs, Is the SEC Ideologically Motivated Against Blockchain Innovation?

26/07/2017 12:58
No comments

It has hardly been a year since Initial Coin Offerings (ICOs) became a thing, but the SEC has already intervened in a manner that leaves much to be desired.

Instead of opening a public consultation on ICOs, the SEC has decided to engage in the task of interpreting the law through an “investigatory report” publicly released, which their enforcement division has generalized as applying to all ICOs:

Some may consider that to be a constitutional breach of the separation of powers as SEC’s job is to be the executive arm and enforce the law, rather than interpret it. A task that rightfully belongs solely to independent judges in a court of law, who reach a decision after hearing arguments from both sides.

As such, whether their conclusion is right or wrong only a court can say,  but the way they have gone about it suggests an ideological streak that dislikes blockchain innovation and insists old laws must be applied to new things.

Instead of holding a public consultation on the matter. Rather than analyzing the variety of functions ICO tokens can have. They have taken one example and then in the tweet have generalized it to all others.

At the same time, they provide no nuance whatever, no guidelines, nor exceptions. A billion dollars ICO is to be treated the same as a million dollars ICO, according to that tweet.

A tweet based on the SEC’s interpretation of the facts and law in just one case. Facts which at times are incorrect with Alex Van De Sande‏, an Ethereum developer, stating:

“The report does contains multiple factual errors: it said the curators could prevent votes to be replaced—they couldn’t.”

It further compares DAO token holders to corporate shareholders when the latter only has an IOU while token holders had direct control over the assets.

That’s why we don’t have the executive, necessarily biased towards increasing their bureaucracy for more funding, interpret the law or facts. And that’s why in a well functioning democracy, policy decisions are made after public debate rather than by issuing “investigatory reports” that were probably carried through little else but a few hours of googling.

An “investigation” which contains no interviews with the relevant parties, no expert input on the technicalities, no consideration of who actually holds and controls the eth and the tokens, nor any discussion of how that may be very different from stock shares where the fiat is given to a managerial class.

Moreover the “investigation” does not consider any policy matters which most legislation contains and any court of law would so consider implicitly or explicitly.

Policy matters such as, can the DAO be considered a co-operative, and if it is, are the co-operative participants who bundle their funds issuing securities? If someone organizes the inception of the co-operative and brings to life this pooling of funds, with the co-operative participants then fully in charge, can it really be said that the initial organizer, to whom the token holders might not even give a dime, is instrumental to its success?

But the SEC does not appear interested in any of the innovatory aspects or the significant differences between traditional securities and DAO like tokens. If they were, they would not issue an “investigatory report” and lay down the law as if they are Congress. They would have instead opened a consultation and engaged with experts to better understand the nature of ICOs, their very different kinds, and so on.

That they did not do does suggest there is an ideological streak at the SEC driving these decisions. That is strengthened by their slap in the face of this space when they waited until literally the last minute to deny the Bitcoin ETF some 4 years after its initial application.

If they expect any start-up to wait 4 years before they can get innovative projects like the DAO off the ground, then they should consider whether the SEC lives in a detached reality of lawyers.

Because the most likely outcome is an exodus to jurisdictions that understand nuance and actually make the effort of engaging this space rather than laying down the law as if they are Moses.

That all said, fair disclosure, quarterly reports, and much of the rest, is reasonable and even desirable, with far more stringent requirements on start-ups that try to raise hundreds of millions and potentially none, or very little, on those that raise $1-$10 million.

But the way the SEC has gone about making their decision has now created significant confusion which means projects will probably simply try and block US citizens from participating.

It, moreover, re-enforces the impression that American regulators are very unfriendly towards this space, with their double taxation of digital currencies continuing.

As such, they may have opened the way for London to take the banner and engage in a more reasonable as well balanced approach towards protecting the public while encouraging innovation.

 

Related Posts

Arbitrum opening price, March 2023

Arbitrum Gifts $1.7 Billion to the Public

Xi meets Putin, March 2023

Two Dictators Meet

Ethereum’s Supply Falls by ◊70,000

ETH Spikes

Load More
  • Trending
  • Comments
  • Latest
The National Bureau of Economic Research

Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan Can’t Survive Bank Run Says NBER Paper, Fail Stress Test

Paul Grewal, Coinbase's Chief Legal Officer

We Asked SEC to Register, They Sent Us a Wells Notice Says Coinbase

NY District Court

XRP Hypes Ahead of Court Decision

Bitcoin and asset prices dive, March 2023

Bitcoin and Stocks Dip on Fed Hikes, But is it a Fakeout?

Arbitrum opening price, March 2023

Arbitrum Gifts $1.7 Billion to the Public

Bitcoin art, March 2023

Stocks Jump 2%, Bitcoin Close to Touching $29,000

Brian Armstrong getting ready for court. The words are a joke, but the picture is him for real, March 2023

Coinbase Dives 15%

The National Bureau of Economic Research

Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan Can’t Survive Bank Run Says NBER Paper, Fail Stress Test

Comments

Latest News

  • Arbitrum Gifts $1.7 Billion to the Public
  • Stocks Jump 2%, Bitcoin Close to Touching $29,000
  • Coinbase Dives 15%

About Trustnodes

Terms of Service

Privacy Policy

Our Ethics and Values

Trustnodes Newsletter

(You have to be a paid subscriber)

Trustnodes © 2017-2023. All Rights Fully Reserved. For any Enquiries contact@trustnodes.com RSS Feed

No Result
View All Result
  • Login
  • Sign Up
  • Cart
  • Markets
  • Crypto
  • Web3
  • Culture
  • Opinion
  • Politics

Trustnodes © 2017-2023. All Rights Fully Reserved. For any Enquiries contact@trustnodes.com RSS Feed

Welcome Back!

Login to your account below

Authenticate with MetaMask Loading...

Forgotten Password? Sign Up

Create New Account!

Fill the forms below to register

*By registering into our website, you agree to the Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy.
All fields are required. Log In

Retrieve your password

Please enter your username or email address to reset your password.

Log In
This website uses cookies. By continuing to use this website you are giving consent to cookies being used. Visit our Privacy and Cookie Policy.
Are you sure want to unlock this post?
Unlock left : 0
Are you sure want to cancel subscription?