Subject: S7-04-23: Webform Comments from John Doe
From: John Doe
Affiliation:

Oct. 29, 2023

Dear Securities and Exchange Commission,

I am writing to submit a public comment regarding the proposed rule on
"Safeguarding Advisory Client Assets." While I acknowledge
the need to enhance investor protections and address gaps in the
custody rule, I have concerns about the potential overreach of
regulatory authority and the lack of clarity surrounding certain
aspects of the rule.

One area of concern is the inclusion of digital assets or
cryptocurrencies within the scope of the proposed rule. It is
essential to recognize the transformative nature of these assets,
built on blockchain technology, and the regulatory uncertainties they
pose. The vagueness and ambiguity surrounding the proposed rule's
application to digital assets raise concerns about potential
consequences and challenges for the industry.

Moreover, the complexity of the proposed rule and its technical
requirements may pose significant compliance costs for investment
advisers. The regulatory creep exhibited in the rule's
complexity, inconsistent terminology, and conflicting rules from
various agencies can lead to regulatory gaps and undue influence on
market participants.

Additionally, the lack of clarity in certain provisions leaves room
for misinterpretation and potential legal disputes. Ambiguous terms
and overly complex regulations may result in poor organization and
unnecessary burdens for investment advisers, ultimately hindering the
efficient operation of the advisory industry.

Furthermore, the punitive approach evident in some elements of the
proposed rule raises questions about fairness and regulatory capture.
Unfair penalties and an unfair advantage for larger market
participants can undermine healthy competition and deter new entrants
from the industry.

Another concerning aspect is the potential violation of privacy rights
and the cost burden associated with compliance. The regulatory overlap
and duplicative requirements from various regulatory bodies may
further exacerbate compliance costs, creating an unnecessary barrier
for smaller investment advisers.

Regulations should strike a delicate balance between investor
protection and avoiding overly intrusive measures that impede economic
growth. The proposed rule, as currently presented, raises concerns
about undue regulatory interference and the likelihood of stifling
innovation in the advisory industry.

As the SEC carefully considers the impact of this proposed rule on the
economy, it is crucial to address the complex issues surrounding
digital assets and ensure clarity in the regulations governing their
custody. By fostering an environment that promotes fair competition,
transparency, and streamlined regulatory requirements, the SEC can
effectively achieve its objectives without unduly burdening industry
participants.

In conclusion, I urge the SEC to take into account the concerns raised
about potential regulatory overreach, lack of clarity, and the
challenges posed by digital assets. It is essential to strike a
balance between investor protection, promoting innovation, and
avoiding unnecessary compliance burdens. I strongly encourage the SEC
to carefully review and revise the proposed rule to address these
concerns and ensure a vibrant and competitive advisory industry.

Thank you for considering my comments.

Sincerely,