1/21
At this point I’m convinced that the SEC’s current regulatory stance on crypto is more someone’s personal political agenda.
Highly technical, educated people, informed on this space cannot reach the conclusion that defi platforms can simply ‘come in and register’
— Adam Cochran (@adamscochran) September 16, 2021
Tweet your reply
Reply
Replying to
2/21 First take
‘s post about the SEC blocking Coinbase aggressively, something the entirely doesn’t align with a department that should be acting in good faith to support innovation while protecting consumers.
Quote Tweet
Brian Armstrong
@brian_armstrong
·
1/ Some really sketchy behavior coming out of the SEC recently. Story time…
Show this thread
1
9
187
3/21 Then we factor in Gensler’s history at MIT where he spent so much time looking into crypto and decentralized systems. Yet the statements he makes in hearings don’t align with his knowledge.
Quote Tweet
Adam Cochran
@adamscochran
·
1/2 When Sen Warren asked Gensler about high Ethereum fees on decentralized exchanges and if he knew what the fees would have been like on the crash last Tuesday, he replied: “Whatever the exchange has outlined in their user agreement” Not gas, not code. User agreement.
Show this thread
7
14
194
4/21 He even seemed to suggest both that securities laws are clear and simple for the crypto market, while also saying congress needs additional laws to clarify them.
Quote Tweet
Brad Garlinghouse
@bgarlinghouse
·
Chair Gensler insisted (again) in today’s testimony that the securities laws are clear and easily understandable for the crypto market…and then turned around and said Congress needs to write laws to clarify. So which one is it? Thank you @SenToomey for being a voice of reason. twitter.com/business/statu…
1
11
151
5/21 Meanwhile
has engaged extensively with the industry and made great proposals like the Safe Harbor concept which seems to have not moved forward.
Quote Tweet
Hester Peirce
@HesterPeirce
·
Safe harbor 2.0 is up. Thanks for all the comments on version 1. Looking forward to your feedback on this version: sec.gov/news/public-st
1
7
165
7/21 But the SECs current rhetoric is: -We won’t tell you which tokens are securities. -But every platform has lots of tokens. -Therefore some must be securities statistically. (Committing the formal fallacy of ‘possibiliter ergo probabiliter’ for you nerds out there)
1
10
186
14/21 In the years of enforcements the SEC has made against crypto not once has it been against a decentralized platform for ‘being a securities platform’ or ‘having securities on its platform. sec.gov/spotlight/cybe
3
2
107
15/21 All of their actions have been against frauds, ICOs, centralized platforms, and things expressly marketed as investments (which is all fair) The only “DeFi” platform we saw hit with action was DMM which was not decentralized and was expressly dealing in security products.
1
4
112
17/21 With Uniswap, the SEC seems more interested “how the team marketed the product” than what the product does. Which if the SEC’s statements were accurate, wouldn’t matter because surely the platform would be a violation regardless of marketing?
How the SEC’s reported Uniswap Labs investigation could signal a new era of enforcement
Crypto-focused lawyers have been waiting for the dam to break on DeFi enforcement, and a reported inquiry into Uniswap Labs could be the floodgates.
theblockcrypto.com