Oct. 14, 2023
As a concerned citizen and advocate for the cryptocurrency and digital asset community, I strongly oppose the proposal "Safeguarding Advisory Client Assets; Reopening of Comment Period" by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). While I understand the importance of investor protections, I believe that the SEC is overreaching in its regulation of cryptocurrency and digital assets, which could stifle innovation and hinder the growth of this emerging industry. Firstly, it is crucial to recognize that cryptocurrencies and digital assets operate in a unique and decentralized manner. They are not subject to the same traditional custodial requirements as traditional financial assets. The SEC's attempt to apply the current custody rule, as outlined in 17 CFR 275.206(4)–2, to digital assets is misguided and fails to consider the fundamental differences between these two asset classes. This approach not only disregards the innovative nature of cryptocurrencies but also creates unnecessary burdens for investment advisers operating in this space. Furthermore, it is important to note that existing laws already provide a framework for regulating cryptocurrencies and digital assets. The SEC's proposal seems to overlook these laws and instead seeks to impose additional regulations that may not be necessary or appropriate. For example, the proposal suggests amending rule 206(4)– 8 to include digital assets within the definition of "securities." However, it is worth noting that the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 already provide a clear definition of securities and the regulatory framework for their issuance and trading. By attempting to expand the definition of securities to include digital assets, the SEC is overstepping its authority and potentially stifling innovation in this rapidly evolving industry. Moreover, the SEC's proposal fails to consider the potential benefits that cryptocurrencies and digital assets can bring to investors and the economy as a whole. These assets have the potential to democratize access to financial services, increase financial inclusion, and foster economic growth. By imposing burdensome regulations, the SEC risks impeding the development of this innovative technology and limiting the opportunities it can provide. Additionally, it is important to recognize that the cryptocurrency and digital asset industry is already subject to robust self-regulatory efforts. Organizations such as the Blockchain Association and the Digital Chamber of Commerce have been actively working to establish best practices and standards for the industry. These self-regulatory initiatives demonstrate that the industry is committed to responsible innovation and can effectively address concerns without heavy-handed government intervention. In conclusion, I urge the SEC to reconsider its proposal "Safeguarding Advisory Client Assets; Reopening of Comment Period" and take into account the unique nature of cryptocurrencies and digital assets. The SEC's overreach in attempting to apply traditional custodial requirements and expand the definition of securities could stifle innovation, hinder economic growth, and impede the potential benefits that these assets can bring. Instead of imposing burdensome regulations, the SEC should work collaboratively with industry stakeholders to develop a balanced regulatory framework that fosters innovation while ensuring investor protection. Thank you for considering my comments. Best regards, mr. Giuseppe Oliveri Virus-free.www.avast.com