1. The White House's stablecoin report from the President's Working Group on Financial Markets was released today and touches on many important issues related to stablecoins with some discussion of DeFi. 👇
2. Some meaningful language: "[m]uch of the trading, lending, and borrowing activity currently fueled by stablecoins on digital asset trading platforms and within DeFi similarly may constitute securities and/or derivatives transactions...."
3. Based on what we know about the SEC's investigations into DeFi and Gensler's certain influence on this report, this language isn't surprising. It does not reveal much other than a lot of thought needs to be put into the design of DeFi protocols.
4. DeFi discussion was focused on the impact of stablecoins on DeFi protocols and risks associated with those relationships. The most telling aspect of the DeFi discussion was the risks that the report identifies:
- fraud
- stablecoin failure threatening DEXs
- money laundering
5. risks continued:
- terrorist financing
- leverage
- non-compliance with regulations
- information asymmetries
- inconsistent trade/price disclosure
- manipulation
- blockchain specific issues (governance/interoperability/scalability/vulnerabilities/cybersecurity/etc.)
6. So, basically every risk of anything possibly happening in any way. Based on these risks, the report's conclusion is that regulatory oversight is necessary because oversight addresses the risks identified above. In reality, the report assumes the lowest common denominator.
7. The report reflects conclusions based on that common denominator. This shows work needs to be done to show that not all DeFi should be treated equally and the functioning of each protocol should be considered in a new regulatory framework to determine appropriate regulations
8. The report's recommendation that legislation be enacted promptly is unlikely to result in stablecoins being treated separately with no consideration for DeFi, especially given how closely the report tied DeFi to stablecoins and vice-versa.
@jchervinsky is right that this is not something that's going to happen anytime soon.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Marc Boiron (Wannabe Shadowy Super Coder)

Marc Boiron (Wannabe Shadowy Super Coder) 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 @boironattorney

4 Nov
1/ Although I have views on much of Gensler’s speech today (sec.gov/news/speech/ge…), one aspect of it is highly problematic. A 🧵
2/ He says: “if you’re asking a lawyer … if something is over the line, maybe it’s time to step back from the line. Remember that going right up to the edge of a rule or searching for some ambiguity in the text or a footnote may not be consistent with the law or its purpose.”
3/ I’m tempted to mock that statement but being serious for a moment, it’s a real problem. Economic realities are important but so are legal realities. The legal reality is that each Howey and Reves analysis requires questioning whether something is over the line.
Read 14 tweets
28 Oct
1/ FATF published its recommendations. It's so bad that it makes the infrastructure bill look reasonable.
TLDR: Only permissioned DeFi is allowed. An intermediary must be inserted to serve as a VASP. The global impact of these recommendations is an attempted kill shot at DeFi.
2/ Several takes today reflect less concern because they are not focused on DeFi in particular. When looking at DeFi, it is clear that the implications are brutal. They start out ok and then it gets worse from there. fatf-gafi.org/media/fatf/doc…
3/ Paragraphs 58-61 provide definitions particularly relevant for DeFi. These terms were had been used in prior guidance but were not defined, so they could be interpreted broadly. Other than the use of "active facilitation" in the definition of "conducts," they aren't horrible.
Read 14 tweets
11 Mar
Although the Wyoming DAO bill that @AWright01 helped draft is imperfect, I disagree with the framing by @lex_node, @prestonjbyrne and @stephendpalley. I feel this way mainly because it solves a huge issue: unlimited liability of DAO members. Thread on the good and the bad 👇
1. Good: DAOs currently operate without regard to the possibility of being general partners in a general partnership for US law purposes, making each of them liable for the actions of each other one. This is a particular risk with a DAO consisting of only a few members.
2. Alternatively, there is no general partnership, but each individual is still liable for his or her own actions. The Wyoming DAO bill would eliminate this risk by wrapping a shell of limited liability around the DAO members.
Read 14 tweets
5 Mar 20
1. The SEC released a set of proposed rules for loosening up current exemptions to registration requirements of securities offering. Details are below 👇 and they include increases to Reg A and CF offering limits. Here are the proposed rules: sec.gov/rules/proposed…
2. The approach to integration (when 2 different securities offerings are treated as one) would change and 4 safe harbors would be created in a new Rule 152. Integration is a more important concept than appears at first blush because it can really restrict offering flexibility.
2a. An offering launched more than 30 days after another is announced or completed would not be integrated with the announced or completed offering, essentially, as long as the rules regarding general solicitation were followed in the prior offering.
Read 18 tweets
11 Jul 19
1/ @blockstack is not the only #RegA+ to have been qualified. The @YouNow Reg A+ offering also has been qualified but it is much different. The offering is to distribute #Prop tokens as rewards in its video app and for developing the network / apps on the network.
2/ Like Blockstack, YouNow has taken the position that the distribution of the tokens does not require a BitLicense in New York. The offering is available to NY residents. Reisdents of Arizona, Nebraska, North Dakota and Texas are exluded.
3/ Like Blockstack, YouNow believes that the network may become so decentralized that the Props tokens will no longer be securities.
Read 8 tweets
1 Jun 19
1/ Boston Security Token Exchange LLC (BSTX) filed a proposed rulebook for its security token exchange that is a JV between Box Exchange and @tzeroblockchain. Rather than going through the rules, here is a description of key aspects of how BSTX will work 👇
2/ All security tokens traded on BSTX will be registered with the Commission under both Section 12 of the Exchange Act and Section 6 of the Securities Act of 1933.
3/ BSTX will not support trading of security tokens offered under an exemption from registration for public offerings, with the exception of certain offerings under Regulation A that meet the proposed BSTX listing standards.
Read 15 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!

:(