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.
Even without Jay Clayton, the majority of Commissioners have still voted to approve every action the Enforcement Division's proposed. There's no reason to believe he was a swing vote on this.
Anyway, it'd be a real shock for the SEC to bring a case & then abandon it weeks later.
Beyond that, it's a mistake to focus only on leadership & minimize the enforcement lawyers working the case.
Jay Clayton's name isn't on the complaint. This comes from other high-ranking officials (Richard Best, Jorge Tenreiro, etc.) & their team, who are surely committed to it.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
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.
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.