,
7 tweets,
22 min read
Read on Twitter
@jchervinsky @josh_blockchain @gulovsen @ForbesCrypto @DelRayMan @AndreaTinianow @GitlitzMichelle @JTelpner @msantoriESQ @ronqman @jaybaris @KMSmithDC @BlockchainAssn Thanks Jake. Who’s responsible for adding federal preemption to the new #tokentaxonomyact? That provision wasn’t included in the version of the bill introduced in December. I wonder what changed between then and now
@jchervinsky @josh_blockchain @gulovsen @ForbesCrypto @DelRayMan @AndreaTinianow @GitlitzMichelle @JTelpner @msantoriESQ @ronqman @jaybaris @KMSmithDC @BlockchainAssn 1/ What’s controversial abt federal preemption here isn’t merely that state securities regulators will object (they will, as Greg Strong points out in @josh_blockchain’s post), but something much more fundamental: do the feds control property law, or just a subset (securities)?
@jchervinsky @josh_blockchain @gulovsen @ForbesCrypto @DelRayMan @AndreaTinianow @GitlitzMichelle @JTelpner @msantoriESQ @ronqman @jaybaris @KMSmithDC @BlockchainAssn 2/ If #digitaltokens aren’t securities, then what are they? The #tokentaxonomyact doesn’t answer bc it can’t. We ran into the same issue in #Wyoming—originally exempting tokens from state securities laws in last year’s HB70, but not defining what they were. So, #Wyoming fixed
@jchervinsky @josh_blockchain @gulovsen @ForbesCrypto @DelRayMan @AndreaTinianow @GitlitzMichelle @JTelpner @msantoriESQ @ronqman @jaybaris @KMSmithDC @BlockchainAssn 3/ that this year by moving all the exemptive language out of the securities statute & creating a whole new chapter of #Wyoming law called “#digitalassets” that defines what they are (if they’re not securities)—personal property. The feds can’t do that bc they don’t control
@jchervinsky @josh_blockchain @gulovsen @ForbesCrypto @DelRayMan @AndreaTinianow @GitlitzMichelle @JTelpner @msantoriESQ @ronqman @jaybaris @KMSmithDC @BlockchainAssn 4/ property law—the states do. That’s why the Uniform Commercial Code (governing the rights & obligations involved in the transfer of personal property) is STATE law, not federal. If you support federal preemption for #digitaltokens, then logically you support federal preemption
@jchervinsky @josh_blockchain @gulovsen @ForbesCrypto @DelRayMan @AndreaTinianow @GitlitzMichelle @JTelpner @msantoriESQ @ronqman @jaybaris @KMSmithDC @BlockchainAssn 5/ of the UCC as well—because it’s the same thing. If tokens aren’t securities, then they’re personal property & covered by the UCC. States *have* to fight this attempt to usurp their long-established supremacy over property law bc it’s a fundamental issue. @TenthAmendment
@jchervinsky @josh_blockchain @gulovsen @ForbesCrypto @DelRayMan @AndreaTinianow @GitlitzMichelle @JTelpner @msantoriESQ @ronqman @jaybaris @KMSmithDC @BlockchainAssn @TenthAmendment 6/ This isn’t the usual skirmish btwn the feds & states over which has regulatory authority—this is a fundamental issue. That’s why the federal preemption provision in the #tokentaxonomyact was so ill-conceived. Why muddy the great parts of the bill by adding it? 🤷♀️☹️
