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
 

Keep Current with Jake Chervinsky

Jake Chervinsky Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @jchervinsky

23 Dec
1/ FinCEN is now accepting public comments on its proposal to extend AML regulation to non-custodial wallets.

The deadline is January 4. We have an unfairly (maybe illegally) short time for this, so we have to use it wisely.

Here's your ultimate guide on submitting a comment 👇
2/ I'll link to the comment form at the end of the thread, but I really want you to read through this first.

Writing a bad comment is worse than none at all. If you don't have time to take this seriously, use a pre-filled form instead (also linked below).
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.
Read 15 tweets
19 Dec
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.
Read 21 tweets
12 Oct
1/ There's been so much regulatory & enforcement news in crypto lately, it's impossible to keep up.

So instead of getting lost in the details, let's step back & consider the big picture. What's really going on here?

In short: an ideological war over self-custody & privacy. 👇
2/ This thread is long but very important.

If you believe in the principles of financial privacy & self-sovereignty at the heart of Bitcoin, as I do, you need to pay attention now.

We've made the world stage, but our biggest challenges still lie ahead.
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.
Read 21 tweets
28 Sep
1/ Great question.

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).
Read 14 tweets
26 Aug
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.
Read 9 tweets
1 Jul
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.
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!