US Securities Regulator Urges Against Crypto Bill Adoption 39
The U.S. securities regulator on Wednesday urged U.S. lawmakers not to adopt a bill that aims to create a new legal framework for digital currencies, saying it would undermine existing legal precedent and put capital markets at "immeasurable risk." From a report: The U.S. House of Representatives is expected later on Wednesday to take up the Republican-sponsored Financial Innovation and Technology for the 21st Century Act, which would in part determine which agencies have jurisdiction over which digital assets. The bill's supporters in Congress say it will provide regulatory clarity, helping promote the industry's growth.
The legislation faces an uncertain fate in the U.S. Senate but comes as the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) signals that it will likely approve applications for spot ether exchange-trade funds in a surprising boost to the industry. But SEC Chair Gary Gensler said in a statement that the bill "would create new regulatory gaps and undermine decades of precedent regarding the oversight of investment contracts, putting investors and capital markets at immeasurable risk."
The legislation faces an uncertain fate in the U.S. Senate but comes as the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) signals that it will likely approve applications for spot ether exchange-trade funds in a surprising boost to the industry. But SEC Chair Gary Gensler said in a statement that the bill "would create new regulatory gaps and undermine decades of precedent regarding the oversight of investment contracts, putting investors and capital markets at immeasurable risk."
Let's be China! (Score:1, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Queue the sarcastic ragebait from the bot-army/bandwagoning naysayers.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Sick of random agencies in our executive branch Not elected as representatives of We the people: having an opinion and telling congress what to do -- when it comes to regulating Individuals and what they can do with their money. They SHOULD be listening to the people First and foremost; Not our own government bureaucrats who just wish to maintain whatever fiefdom they have established under the current Court interpretation of the laws.
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, I think I got it. You could have phrased that better.
There was also a notion that the same regulatory bodies which were appointed by congress are conspirators who are manipulating congress. And also that congress should ignore experts and instead rely on the knowledge of the public when it comes to technical policy minutia.
Re:Let's be China! (Score:5, Insightful)
Crypto has an entire decade of no rules, very little regulation and massive development funding. Have they created a "new market for people"? No, the crypto proponents have shown themselves to simply wrap themselves in the cloth of altruism ("We're just trying to create a new non-fiat currency, for freedom! for third world countries!") and then do nothing but enable more exchanges for fiat currencies, process more money in fiat and just look the other way through scam and scam after scam.
If it didn't create one already it's not gonna happen in the future. Stop pretending like crypto is anything different than people buying MBS or penny stocks. It's just a betting token, you buy them because you think they'll be worth more USD in the future, that's it. Let's drop the pretense here.
The US dollar has never had to advertise me to use it on social media. And if I did see a banner ad offering "Hey, free money!" like crypto does all of us would immediately read it as a total scam. If your product is so good stop trying so fucking hard to sell it to me.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Governments can try to centralize their control on the markets but they will always fail. If people find something lacking in the supply of government issued bank notes then they will find something else to replace them as a means of exchange.
I recall reading something years ago of illegal drug dealers taking payment in laundry detergent, I believe some specific brand/style of laundry detergent. I wish I could recall the details but it was something about laundry detergent being something of value that co
Re: Let's be China! (Score:2)
" Of course if things get bad enough then we could revert to barter to avoid government interference in trade."
Of course you can't because the government will simply decide what the value of your barter is and tax you accordingly in fiat currency units, and they won't accept chickens. Choosing not to do business in those units so that you have something to pay taxes with will result in a trip to PMITA prison.
Fraud is a growth industry. (Score:5, Insightful)
Fraud is a growth industry. So, yeah, cryptocurrencies have been very dynamic.
This is an issue just now? (Score:1)
I would think that there are already "legal frameworks" for digital assets. As an example I recall a conversation with someone about how a large corporation was trying to deal with potential bankruptcy, they wanted to argue that their licenses for some really expensive software should be handled as one kind of asset versus another because that made their accounting look better. I wish I could recall the details but it was something about how the software license they had should have been considered some k
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The crypto guys say the government is afraid too many people will turn in their fiat dollars for digital tokens, drive down the value of their fiat currencies, and impinge on the government's ability to deficit spend. Spending can influence political popularity and comes from of stimmies, loan forgiveness, or maybe some regional pork barrel spending. So, deficit spending = power to buy votes. Thus the basic thesis
Re: (Score:2)
The government will swear up and down they aren't using currency & banking to manipulate public opinion
I mean of course they do, taxes are a way to move public sentiments and action into certain directions. Interest rates are meant to move the economy into certain behaviors. The government subsidizes banks to make certain types of loans so we can achieve certain outcomes. We can use the word "manipulate" to add normativity to these functions but we really have to look at them one by one to see if this is something malicious or just how government works.
In the US at least the purse strings run through Cong
Re: (Score:2)
Congress has flipped control seemingly every 2-4 years for my entire life I do find it hard to see some cohesive strategy here.
I agree with your logic, but what if both of the partisan sides are itching to spend money to buy votes for their sides? Then that means there is one big pressure that never goes away: spending.
Re: (Score:3)
Sure but those are very different groups with very different views on what that money goes towards so the priorities are constantly shifting. Trump and Bush spent their deficits on tax cuts, Biden and Obama spent it on infrastructure and healthcare.
Politicians are supposed to "buy votes", people elected them to do things and a big one of those is spending money. What we are argue about is what things that goes towards. That's why I take an issue with a phrase like "manipulate", that term carries a lot of
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I suppose my statement would be "most don't want it and most who say they want it when you drill down to specifics don't actually want all they think they do or wouldn't like the outcomes of the result of cutting that". It's basically why Republicans have threatened to cut Social Security for my entire life but have never actually acted on it, American's love Social Security and even those who say they don't
That doesn't mean we shouldn't be looking at bad programs and cutting them down, the governmen
Re: (Score:2)
I would have to drill down more into your specifics
Cancel all military aid and especially that which goes to fuel current conflicts. That means absolutely no money for Ukraine or Israel. Zero. Nada.
Close 95% of our 800 foreign bases
Stop all production of nuclear weapons
Re-enter START treaties
Fully fund veterans health programs
Discontinue and possibly prosecute anyone involved with bioweapons research
I could go on for a while....
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
is that really what you want?
Absolutely fuck the Ukrainians. It's one of the most corrupt countries on Earth. Yeah, I wish we wouldn't have helped them with their last coup or done any of the things that has made their lot worse, but they have no right to endless billions in weapons $$$ from the USA, and it's enriching the military industrial complex which already has way too much power and is a huge force for evil.
If you're asking me if I personally care if Putin takes Ukraine the answer is fuck no; I could care less. I care as muc
Re: (Score:2)
Cancel all military aid and especially that which goes to fuel current conflicts. That means absolutely no money for Ukraine or Israel. Zero. Nada.
Disagree but this is the most reasonable, at least on moral grounds. Would run into a lot of issues with allies though, or is part of this plan no more allies?
Close 95% of our 800 foreign bases
Despite what many Americans think most countries want those bases. Also ceding that global position over trade is just ceding it to China most likely and every country in the region does not want that and enjoys US hegemony and trade protection. Doesn't mean you can't close some though.
Stop all production of nuclear weapons
The US I don't even think is building new nukes? Fair there is
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't buy the "US Hegemony has prevented more wars and Hitlers." thesis. How?
Number 1 is just incidental and that is nuclear weapons and MAD. No nuclear armed nations want to go to war because it's a huge risk. Thusly why the cold war didn't turn hot. Second is trade and the US as the largest economy a lot of money flows through that and through the US Navy why takes the role of protecting trade routes for effectively the world means that global capitalism between nations is maintained and nations that trade together are less likely to war with eachother because they have much mo
Re: (Score:2)
nuclear weapons and MAD.
We have the land/sea/air nuclear triad and we have ICBMs. I'm not being rude or trite, but this isn't justification for our high level of militarism. We could get the same mileage out of 1/100th as many nukes and none of that requires 800 foreign bases and their associated cost. Neither does it justify all the intelligence meddling and covert (illegal) arms shipments we did in various South American conflicts.
global capitalism between nations is maintained and nations that trade together are less likely to war
Trade itself tends to retard instincts to war as you already noted. However, securing trade routes
Re: (Score:3)
So you're saying both sides are lying scumbags. OK, I can accept that. But a complex society really can't avoid having a government, but it could avoid allowing cryptocurrency.
Re: (Score:2)
So you're saying both sides are lying scumbags.
I dunno. The government is scum for deficit spending and crypto guys do seem to be ducking the facts about money laundering.
Cry me a river (Score:1)
it would undermine existing legal precedent and put capital markets at "immeasurable risk."
And that's bad how?
Re: (Score:3)
Putting capital markets at "immeasurable risk" is what happened in 2008, several countries have still not recovered from that mess. If you can't remember what that was about, look up "Lehmann Brothers".
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's because they didn't let the free markets work, like Iceland [bbc.com] did [vox.com].
If you can't remember what that was about, look up "Lehmann Brothers".
Lehman was just a token issue. It was the only good thing Bush did during this time. He let the free markets work by showing the rest of Wall Street they needed to get their act together and not keep leeching off the taxpay
Re: (Score:2)
I feel like we did learn a bit of that lesson in 2020 versus 2008. In 2008 the relief funds went right to the banks, in 2020 we spent a lot of funds directly in consumers pockets. Both have negative side effects but fact is we recovered in 2020 way faster than 2008 so I think you do have a point. Let the market adjust itself and use relief directly for the consumers. If in 2008 we had done the same and bailed out the homeowners rather than the owners of their loans I think we would have recovered faster
Re: (Score:2)
Because a lot of US GDP comes on the back of the financial sector so they have a lot of influence and regulators are not keen to throw a wrench in the works. Now that doesn't mean that sector is laxly regulated but they do pull a lot of influence just the same.
Also I think that can be alright, they can make their billions but for me I just want to make sure those earnings are taxed appropriately and distributed just the same. Eliminate capital gains rates, raise the marginal top rates, force the wealthies
Not in my 401k, please. (Score:5, Insightful)
It is foolish to believe the same investor class that fell for the dotcom bust, Enron, and the subprime mortgage crises can somehow understand and properly evaluate the risk of investing in cryptocurrencies. The most likely outcome of legitimizing cryptocurrencies will be that existing holders will get rich, 401k managers will get a few quarterly bonuses, and then the rest of us will get the Dear Investor... letters.
Cryptocurrencies have the same inherent problem as all fiat currencies, but with the additional problem that because they aren't backed, or controlled, by a centralized government authority, they function very poorly as a store of value. Their value is derived entirely from their speculative value, not their ability to hold and store value, to facilitate trade, or any other essential monetary function.
They know the risks (Score:1)
We need to start electing people that will regulate Wall Street, but that's people like Elizabeth Warren and, well, she's kind of insufferable. She gives off a School Marm vibe that really pisses people off. And frankly everyone who is serious about regulating Wall Street does.
It's silly, but I don't know how we get past that.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem to address is called "regulatory capture". Regulation is necessary. Even with "regulatory capture" it's generally better than not having regulation. But it's a lot better when "regulatory capture" is not present.
FWIW, and IMNSHO, I feel that anyone who works as a regulator should be forbidden for the rest of their life from accepting any emolument of any kind from those they once regulated. This would generally mean that you had to pay higher wages to obtain qualified personnel, but it woul