3 ms·
They are not required to do so, no. However, abusing retroactive enforcement does create a pretty clear case that the SEC is not interested in forming a regula
by blq10 3y ago
They are not required to do so, no.
However, abusing retroactive enforcement does create a pretty clear case that the SEC is not interested in forming a regulatory framework for the exchange of digital commodities - instead preferring to import securities frameworks and punishing participants in the nascent industry.
Why should anyone reasonably believe the SEC has intentions to allow crypto to exist, and that coinage just did it wrong?
- scott_w 3y ago> However, abusing retroactive enforcement Statements like this create a pretty clear case that you haven’t read or shown any real interest in the SEC investigation and litigation related to crypto.
- blq10 3y agoHow is this not retroactive enforcement? The particular product under investigation and or litigation was around for 3 or 4 years, and while the SEC is free to reclassify financial products at will - the fact that they did so and are now attempting to extract company-destroying damages indicates that they did not particularly care.