A challenge, sure, but “impossible” as the op-ed actually concludes? That’s harder to swallow.

Two thoughts: (1) this provides a concrete problem that a revision could do better to address, (2) if this is the biggest issue vis-a-vis tradfi then… that’s good?

https://twitter.com/coindesk/status/1668658359006900227

“Not only would the bill not affect the definition of “investment contract,” but it would have the SEC decide which of those tokens are equity or debt securities.” Something to fix! Nice feedback.

Today, @ConsenSys submitted its comment on the @SECGov's NPRM concerning the definition of an "exchange". In short, the amendments would be unlawful if they were finalized in their current form, particularly because they are intended to apply to blockchain protocols. In brief, the reopening release
- fails to correct key legal deficiencies in the proposed amendments
- improperly interprets the term "exchange" in the '34 Act
- underscores the impropriety of redefining exchanges so as to bolster the registration of broker dealers

The High-Level Exploratory Group on Crypto-Assets and Decentralized Finance established by the European Systemic Risk Board (ESRB) delivered a report yesterday outlining its findings on the scope and priorities for the analysis of crypto-assets and DeFi
esrb.europa.eu/pub/pdf/report… To reduce risks in DeFi:
"DeFi developers and DeFi deployers stand out as significant entry points to regulate. Relevant vectors for regulating DeFi developers are as follows. . ."

Let's briefly talk about #MiCA and the transfer of funds rule (TFR) in the #EU.

Short 🧵 They may be formally ratified by April 19th, and about 4-8 weeks thereafter they will be published in the "Official Journal of the EU" (which I'm sure you subscriber to) and thus go into effect.

That starts an 18 month clock.

Judge: you're being vague
SEC: we'll tell you privately
Judge: say it publicly
SEC: Fine. the Staff thinks Voyager token is a security and Binance.US is a 1934 Act exchange but Commission hasn't said anything formal, so reject the plan.
Judge: Ya, nope

https://twitter.com/iampaulgrewal/status/1636058287513952258

Judge: also, AYFKM that me and the debtors are supposed to figure why this or that is a security or an exchange? Let alone PROVE they aren't.

MUST READ court filing. get comfy

https://twitter.com/0xSisyphus/status/1561742491480727558

Main argument: a wire fraud insider trading theory still requires the traded asset to be a security or commodity, and NFTs are neither.

Second, there was no property interest in knowing what was going to be featured on OS because that has no determinable econ value.

🤨

A quick thread on Judge Kaplan's opinion in the federal class action securities suit against #BlockOne. First, it recognizes that which on-chain transactions are domestic to the US and which are not is a novel and difficult question.

https://twitter.com/AlisonFrankel/status/1559653091192053763

This matters because US securities laws and regs only apply to transactions in securities listed on US exchanges and transactions in the US concerning non-listed securities.

We (@ConsenSys) have submitted a comment in response to @SECGov 's proposal to expand the definition of a securities “exchange” to cover “communication protocol systems”. We encourage you to read it here: consensys.net/blog/news/cons….
1/21
🧵👇 We respectfully request @SECGov clarify in any final rule that it does not cover blockchain-based networks. Short of that, the proposal would run afoul of the law in a number of respects. 2/21