1/ FASCINATING MOVE by SEC on whether a trust company qualifies as a bank under its rules. This enforcement action doesn't pertain to #crypto specifically but it applies broadly to the key question--does a trust co qualify as a bank under SEC custody rule? sec.gov/enforce/33-108…
2/ Answer was a resounding "NO" in this case--the trust co didn't qualify for exemptions that apply to banks bc trust co didn't exercise "substantial investment authority." This is a KEY POINT--a trust co that doesn't act as a fiduciary is NOT A BANK under SEC's rules.
3/ This is one of the big reasons why #Wyoming created #SPDI bank charter--bc trust cos are prob not qualified custodians under SEC rules. To be a bank under SEC rules custodian must either (1) take deposits or (2) act as fiduciary. Trust cos can't take deposits (only banks can).
4/ So, to be a qualified custodian, the trust co MUST ACT AS A FIDUCIARY. That's exactly the issue that the SEC raised in this enforcement action against a trust co today. What does it mean to be a fiduciary? Simply put, the trust co must exercise discretion over customer assets.
5/ How many US #crypto custodians that have trust company charters are "exercising discretion over customer assets?" I know of ONLY ONE that meets this standard.
What does this mean for #crypto? It means trust cos that act as custodians in US mkt will need to get bank charters.
6/ Thankfully, #Wyoming's #SPDI charter is available! 🤠 It has been open for applicants for a year now.
7/ This topic has been a fault line in the US #crypto regulatory landscape for a while. If a state-chartered trust co doesn't qualify as a bank under the SEC's rules but is claiming a bank's exemptions as if it were, whose job is it to enforce that-the SEC or the state regulator?
8/ Well today SEC answered that question via enforcement action against a state-chartered trust co. Folks-clearest way to be treated as a bank under SEC's rules is actually to be a bank! Thankfully that option is avail to #crypto industry thx to #Wyoming's SPDI. NOT LEGAL ADVICE!
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1/ I'VE BEEN THINKING about why the Fed left in place one of its anti-#crypto statements while rescinding all 4 others. The one it left in place was issued in coordination w/ the Biden White House's anti-crypto statement on January 27, 2023. Link here: federalregister.gov/documents/2023…x.com/CaitlinLong_/s…
2/ The Jan 27, 2023 guidance left in place by the Fed does many things, but here are the keys:
a. blocks banks from touching cryptoassets as principal, even in a tiny amount to pay gas/transaction fees,
b. blocks banks from issuing #stablecoins on permissionless blockchains +👇
3/ c. maintains a Fed policy preferring permissioned blockchains over permissionless ones--even tho the other federal banking agencies (OCC/FDIC) rescinded that.
What means?
**THE FED HAS MAINTAINED A REGULATORY PREFERENCE FOR PERMISSIONED STABLECOINS (ie, big-bank versions)**
@nic__carter @PirateWires THIS BOMBSHELL HAS BEEN AN OPEN SECRET in Washington for quite a while--so much so that it wasn't really a secret anymore. *FINALLY* someone put it in writing:
🚨**Elizabeth Warren had de facto control over Biden's economic & financial regulatory team.**
Historians, have fun...
@nic__carter @PirateWires AND LOOKY HERE...a name that insiders also surfaced when the White House & Fed went after @custodiabank, using the press to try to intimidate us into withdrawing our Fed applications by telling us the Fed Board would vote down our application--2 days before the vote happened:
1/ WE TOOK TERRITORY by issuing the first bank-issued #stablecoin on a permissionless blockchain & it's not what you think. 🧵 below. The real impact is on #tradfi--yes, #crypto took regulatory territory, but #tradfi is the real story in what @custodiabank did w/ @Vantage_Bank.
2/ Background: Fed Governor Waller's #stablecoin speech a few wks ago distinguished btwn "real" dollars & "synthetic" dollars, noting stablecoins are synthetic. Only the Fed + special types of entities legally authorized to take demand deposits can issue *real* dollars. federalreserve.gov/newsevents/spe…
3/ Crypto doesn't care abt that distinction, but to #tradfi that distinction is EVERYTHING. Why? bc tradfi must care about legal, accounting & tax rules. I can't give legal, accounting or tax advice, but when a bank authorized to issue a dollar issues a dollar, it's a dollar.💡
1/ Prime Trust's bankruptcy Plan Admin recommended that its #crypto custody customers--who thought they owned the custodied assets--take a haircut. Amount not clear yet (Celsius custody customers took a 27.5% haircut). These situations were sadly avoidable. courtlistener.com/docket/6769170…
2/ Context: bankruptcy is a process designed to maximize the recovery of assets for a bankrupt company's estate, while a bank's receivership is a process designed to protect a bank customers. When a non-bank fails, it goes to bankruptcy. When a bank fails, it goes to receivership
3/ So, the Prime Trust discussion is only a bankruptcy discussion because Prime Trust wasn't a bank.
Prime Trust went bust and has an asset shortfall, so a bankruptcy judge must decide whether its custody customers will get all their assets back or will take a haircut.
1/ NEW BLOG: "How To Keep The #Bitcoin Strategic Reserve From Morphing Into A Bailout Fund." Did you know SBF publicly advocated for a crypto bailout fund just 1 month before FTX failed? Story 👇Lesson: don’t let future Sams hijack the SBR for a bailout!!! caitlin-long.com/how-to-keep-bi…
2/ In the blog I analyze #bitcoin as a reserve asset (key is its favorable inflation rate differential)--but condition my support for a BSR on drafting legislation w/ 4 specific prohibitions to prevent insolvent-but-politically-connected people from ever using it for a bailout:
3/ The favorable inflation rate differential between #bitcoin & US dollar + strategic benefits make bitcoin worth considering as a reserve asset, but the consensus mechanisms of other #crypto can be too easily changed to permit higher inflation so I don't support including them:
🚨HUGE NEWS on #debanking & #OperationChokePoint2.0: a little birdie told me that @FDICgov Vice Chair Travis Hill just spoke at an ABA meeting & said there is no place at the FDIC for those who explicitly or implicitly supported its debanking initiative. Transcript not avail yet
Travis Hill is a Republican & is vice chairman of the FDIC—has been outvoted by Biden/Warrenites on the FDIC board, but that will change on Jan 20 when Gruenberg steps down.
It'll be soooooooo interesting to see if Hill went off-script. Don't forget Gruenberg's people still control the FDIC (head of comms is allegedly trying to silence online critics of #debanking, so I doubt such remarks would've made it thru official editing of his speech, which should be posted at this site soon): fdic.gov/news/speeches