Dear Securities and Exchange Commission, I am writing to provide my public comment on the proposed rule "Safeguarding Advisory Client Assets." While I understand the importance of investor protections and the need to address gaps in the custody rule, I have several concerns regarding the rule proposals. First and foremost, I would like to express my concern about the lack of clarity on the definition of digital assets. The proposal does not provide clear guidance on what constitutes a digital asset, leading to confusion and potential misinterpretation. Given the rapid growth and evolving nature of digital assets, it is crucial to establish a clear and comprehensive definition to ensure regulatory compliance and investor protection. Furthermore, the proposed rule's treatment of digital assets raises significant concerns. Digital assets, such as cryptocurrencies built on blockchain technology, have the potential to transform the financial industry. However, the lack of regulatory clarity and certainty hampers innovation and investment in this emerging asset class. The proposed rule should provide clear guidelines on how investment advisers can safeguard digital assets, taking into account their unique characteristics and associated risks. Additionally, the economic analysis provided in the proposal lacks a thorough assessment of the potential costs and benefits of the rule. While it acknowledges the challenge of estimating economic effects due to varying practices among investment advisers, a more comprehensive analysis is needed to fully understand the impact on the industry and investors. The SEC should consider conducting a more in-depth study to ensure that the proposed rule achieves its intended goals of investor protection without placing an undue burden on investment advisers. Furthermore, the proposed rule should also take into account the potential impact on competition and capital formation. While investor protection is of paramount importance, it is crucial to strike a balance that does not stifle competition or hinder the growth of the industry. The SEC should carefully analyze the long-term effects of the rule on advisory services, qualified custodians, and the overall competitiveness of the market. In conclusion, while I support the SEC's efforts to enhance investor protections and address gaps in the custody rule, the proposed rule lacks clarity on digital assets and requires a more thorough economic analysis. I urge the SEC to consider my concerns and make the necessary revisions to ensure that the final rule achieves its intended objectives while promoting innovation and competitiveness in the industry. Thank you for considering my comments. I appreciate the opportunity to contribute to the public discourse on this important matter. Sincerely, Jacques Rinck