In the evolving landscape of cryptocurrency regulation, the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has taken a firm stance on the classification and oversight of digital assets. This regulatory approach has led to a significant divide between the SEC and crypto institutions, with the latter advocating for a unique regulatory category for cryptocurrencies. However, this aspiration clashes with existing legal frameworks, necessitating changes in law for such categorization to be feasible.

At the heart of this debate is the SEC’s perspective that, barring Bitcoin, most cryptocurrencies, including Ethereum, fall under the definition of securities. This standpoint is rooted in the application of the Howey Test, a legal precedent used to determine what constitutes a security. According to this test, an investment contract exists if there is an investment of money in a common enterprise with a reasonable expectation of profits to be derived from the efforts of others. Many crypto assets and exchanges have struggled to align with these criteria, often operating in grey areas of the law.

Understanding the current laws on the books

In the wake of the 1929 stock market crash and the Great Depression, the United States enacted pivotal securities laws in the 1930s to restore investor confidence and introduce transparency and fairness in financial markets. The Securities Act of 1933, commonly known as the “truth in securities” law, aimed to ensure transparency in financial statements for informed investment decisions and established legal deterrents against fraud in the securities markets. This act mandated the registration of securities (like stocks and bonds) and required that significant information about them be made available to the public for any offer or sale.

Following this, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 was established, creating the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The SEC was tasked with enforcing these new securities laws, regulating the securities industry, and overseeing the nation’s stock and options exchanges. Furthermore, this act focused on the disclosure in materials used for soliciting shareholder votes in corporate actions, including the election of directors. Together, these laws formed the cornerstone of financial market regulation, emphasizing disclosure and transparency to protect investors and ensure the integrity of markets. Their influence persists, underpinning modern financial regulation and the ongoing oversight of securities and financial markets.

Gary Gensler’s Stance on Crypto Regulation

Gary Gensler, in his role as the Chair of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), has been vocal about the need for stringent regulation in the cryptocurrency market, often highlighting the lack of investor protection in this rapidly evolving sector. He describes the current state of the crypto market as similar to the “Wild West,” indicating a landscape that’s largely unregulated, characterized by significant risks including fraud and scams​​.

Gensler holds the view that many cryptocurrencies are, in fact, securities under U.S. law. This is based on the application of the Howey Test, a criterion established by the U.S. Supreme Court, which helps in determining what constitutes an investment contract and thus a security. He has aligned with previous SEC viewpoints, asserting that most initial coin offerings (ICOs) and other digital assets should be considered securities and hence fall under the regulatory purview of the SEC​​​​.

A significant part of Gensler’s focus has been on the regulation of crypto trading platforms. He has emphasized the necessity for these platforms to register with the SEC, drawing parallels between the functions of crypto platforms and those of traditional regulated exchanges. His stance is that such regulation is crucial for safeguarding market integrity and protecting investors from potential fraud and market manipulation. He has also touched upon the need for compliance in the realms of crypto lending platforms and stablecoins, noting the challenges they pose in terms of financial stability and potential use in illicit activities​​​​.

Gensler’s approach underscores a future of the crypto market that is more aligned with traditional financial systems, with a strong emphasis on legal compliance, investor protection, and market integrity.

A new commission for crypto?

Creating a specialized regulatory body like a Crypto Commodity Commission or Crypto Exchange Commission would be a pivotal development in the cryptocurrency sector, necessitating a thoughtful and multi-faceted approach. The foundation of such a commission lies in the legislative process, requiring new laws that clearly define its authority, functions, and the scope of its regulatory oversight. This groundwork would involve discerning the particularities of digital assets and activities under its purview, differentiating between commodities and securities within the crypto realm, and establishing how this new body would interact with existing entities like the SEC and CFTC.

Proof of work coins technically align conceptually with the cftc

The idea that Proof of Work (PoW) cryptocurrencies could potentially fall under the jurisdiction of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) is rooted in the conceptual similarities in how these coins are produced and their underlying algorithmic protocols. PoW, a consensus mechanism used by many cryptocurrencies including Bitcoin, involves solving complex mathematical problems to validate transactions and create new blocks on the blockchain. This process, known as mining, is fundamental to the way PoW cryptocurrencies operate and maintain their networks.

One of the key arguments for considering PoW cryptocurrencies as commodities and placing them under the oversight of the CFTC lies in their intrinsic nature. Unlike securities, which represent an investment in a common enterprise with the expectation of profits primarily from the efforts of others, PoW cryptocurrencies are decentralized and do not inherently involve an investment contract or a central authority. This characteristic aligns more closely with commodities, which are basic goods used in commerce that are interchangeable with other goods of the same type.

In the end, bitcoin remains victorious

Bitcoin, however, has managed to stand apart in this regulatory landscape. Recognized as a commodity rather than a security, Bitcoin’s decentralized nature and lack of an overseeing body align more closely with assets like gold, wheat, or oil. This distinction as a commodity gives Bitcoin a unique position in the eyes of federal regulators, potentially offering it more stability and acceptance in the long run.

The SEC’s approach, seemingly parental in nature, aims to ensure investor protection and market integrity. It’s a balancing act between fostering innovation in the emerging crypto market and enforcing existing securities laws.It’s crucial for crypto institutions to navigate these regulatory waters accordingly.

Bitcoin Versus is not a financial advisor. This media platform reports on financial subjects purely for educational and entertainment purposes only. The information provided on this platform is not intended as investment, tax, legal, or other professional advice. You should not rely on this information as a substitute for individual advice from a licensed professional. Do your own due diligence and contact a professional financial advisor for any advice on how to invest your money.