3/ First, let me assure you that public comments do matter.
A LOT.
Agencies have to read & respond to the substance of every single one. Your voice will be heard. It might change minds on the other side. Even if not, it still might slow them down.
This is worth your time.
4/ Here are five tips for writing a clear & effective comment.
TIP 1: BE RESPECTFUL.
This is really a requirement, not a tip. Be firm, but polite. Don't write anything you wouldn't say to your mother. Don't use insults or profanity. Focus on the rule, not the people behind it.
5/ TIP 2: DO YOUR RESEARCH.
Make sure you fully understand the rule & its impact. Your comment will be easy to disregard if you get the facts wrong. I'll link more resources below to help with this, but you can start with my last thread & the rule itself:
Start by saying who you are & how you know what you're talking about. Then focus on how the rule would affect you personally, or how it would affect your company or business. Stick to what you know. Leave the complex legal arguments to the lawyers.
7/ TIP 4: BE SPECIFIC.
Give concrete, detailed examples of how the rule would affect you. Don't just complain generally about how you don't like it. You can also share your thoughts on the process surrounding the rule, such as if you'd like more than 15 days to write a comment.
8/ TIP 5: KEEP IT SIMPLE.
A few clear & sharp paragraphs is plenty. Use plain & straightforward language. You don't have to write a whole book or a fancy poem. Don't bother with logic puzzles, rhetorical questions, or hypotheticals.
Finally, don't forget Tip 1: be respectful!
9/ I also want to share some resources to help you learn about the rule & the arguments that others have made about it.
To start, the @coincenter team is all over this, as always. Check out their great blog post & detailed comment letter in this thread:
14/ @coincenter also has an awesome template that you can use to send an email directly to Secretary Mnuchin, urging him to remove the most problematic parts of the rule.
You can & should do this *in addition to* submitting a public comment to FinCEN.
15/ Please, please, please take some time to submit a comment.
This is the most serious policy fight we've had in a long time. It's truly important that we show up in force -- with both volume & quality -- to claim victory when Secretary Mnuchin moves along on January 20.
[end]
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
It's extremely unlikely that changes in SEC leadership will have any impact on the Ripple case.
Given Comm'r Peirce's conspicuous silence, I'd guess the vote was unanimous in favor of filing.
Regardless, the case is being prosecuted by enforcement lawyers who are here to stay.
To clarify the point re: Comm'r Peirce, she's often vocal when she disagrees with her colleagues on enforcement (e.g., Kik, Unikrn).
That she hasn't commented may suggest she approved. OTOH, it may be inappropriate to speak up while charges are pending, so it might mean nothing.
Even so, she's the only one who's shown interest in voting not to approve crypto enforcement actions. You can see the results of Commission votes on district court actions here (after they're resolved): sec.gov/about/commissi….
You'll struggle to find "no" votes other than hers.
1/ After a long wait, FinCEN has finally issued its new proposed rule extending AML regulation to non-custodial wallets.
It could've been worse (really), but it's still a terrible rule in both process & substance.
Here's what it says, what's wrong with it, & what we do next 👇
2/ The rule would impose new obligations on virtual asset service providers (VASPs) like exchanges & custodians.
For deposits & withdrawals > $3k involving a non-custodial wallet, VASPs would have to record the name & physical address of the wallet owner. home.treasury.gov/news/press-rel…
3/ VASPs would also have to report any deposit or withdrawal > $10k to FinCEN in the form of a currency transaction report (CTR).
FinCEN says these requirements are necessary to "combat the financing of global terrorism," "address transnational money laundering...." You get it.
3/ Crypto market infrastructure has improved dramatically in recent years.
It's now quite easy for most people to convert fiat into crypto, withdraw any amount to their own wallet, & then do as they wish without restriction or identification, subject only to the consensus rules.
The short answer (not legal advice) is the money probably gets bailed-in just like other deposits at the failed bank & no special dynamics protect stablecoin holders, afaik.
The longer answer requires looking at the relationships between all the parties . . .
2/ First, you have the stablecoin issuer & the bank custodying its reserve; is there anything special here to protect against a bail-in?
Second, you have the stablecoin issuer & the stablecoin holders; is there anything special here to give holders recourse in case of a bail-in?
3/ The best place I can think of to look for insight on these questions is in the terms, conditions, & disclosures of the issuers' whitepapers, user agreements, & attestations (links at end of thread).
1/ My last thoughts on security tokens & then I'll stop triggering everyone trying to shill their STO products here:
I agree it's possible to eke out some efficiencies by putting any financial instrument on a blockchain, & yes, disrupting central securities depositories is neat.
2/ To me, this fits the blockchain use case of "companies can save a few dollars by automating their back office."
That's fine! Nothing wrong with that!
It's just not particulary interesting in the broader context of crypto, & it gives off a very "blockchain, not bitcoin" vibe.
3/ What *is* interesting, maybe revolutionary, is allowing self-custody of financial instruments & exposing them to the composability of open protocols.
The problem is that security tokens are somewhat unfit for these goals, not only due to regulation, but by their very nature.
I'm suspicious of describing "DeFi tokens" as a category.
These tokens have vastly different characteristics & pose varied & complex risks, as do their underlying protocols.
Calling them all "DeFi tokens" both legitimizes the terrible projects & undermines the space as a whole.
I have the same problem with "personal tokens."
Some are just interesting & harmless experiments by people playing with new tech. Others are blatant attempts to raise money by selling investment contracts, reminiscent of ICOs.
The former suffers by association with the latter.
There's something genuinely exciting happening here: the creation of natively digital assets with novel, unique, & diverse (if experimental) properties.
But if we've learned anything in crypto, it's that real innovation begets flawed imitation, which begets fraudulent schemes.