STICHWORTE: • • • • • • •von

Läutet die SEC das Ende des Kryptobooms ein?

Es gibt einen interessanten E-Mail-Newsletter. Name: Doomberg. Da hätte ich mal draufkommen sollen. Einfach googeln. Noch ist er unentgeltlich. Immer wieder finde ich die Gedanken interessant. So auch diese zum Thema Kryptowährung. Wie immer Highlights mit Kommentierung:

  • “DeFi stands for decentralized finance, and it is the crypto world’s attempt to radically transform the entire financial system. It is truly innovative, dynamic, and filled with promise for a better world. It is also a direct threat to the core power base of the global elite – the world is already great for them, remember – and we suspect they won’t go down without a real fight. If we’re correct, that fight begins in earnest soon.” – bto: Es ist unstrittig, dass beim Geld der Spaß aufhört – vor allem mit Blick auf das staatliche Monopol.
  • “When targeting a sector, the SEC playbook calls for three simple steps. First, SEC officials jawbone in public. Second, important policy statements are released on its website. Finally, the SEC cracks its knuckles and sets about the task of punching people in the face – but it tends to target only those who can’t punch back (i.e., most crypto billionaires will be just fine). Last week, it passed from the first to the second step. The trip to the third is usually a short one.” – bto: Wenn sie die Großen laufen lassen und die Masse im Visier haben, kann das nur grundsätzliche Einschränkungen bedeuten.
  • “On November 9, 2021, SEC Commissioner Caroline Crenshaw published what we believe will be seen as a historically important statement on DeFi. (…)  In Part I of the statement, Crenshaw insists that when it comes to DeFi, the word ‘finance’ is just as important as the word ‘decentralized.’ She makes the case that virtually all DeFi programs in existence today fall under the SEC’s jurisdiction.” – bto: Die Aussage ist, es gehört in den Bereich, den die SEC regulieren darf und muss.
  • “In Part II, Crenshaw reminds the public that unregulated markets suffer from structural limitations including corruption, fraud, self-dealing, and substantial information asymmetries among investors.” – bto: Damit ist klar, dass es dringenden Handlungsbedarf für die SEC gibt.
  • “In Part III, Crenshaw drops the hammer. Using language that could not be more clear, she effectively calls virtually all existing DeFi projects illegal. Here’s the key passage: ‘For example, a variety of DeFi participants, activities, and assets fall within the SEC’s jurisdiction as they involve securities and securities-related conduct. But no DeFi participants within the SEC’s jurisdiction have registered with us, though we continue to encourage participants in DeFi to engage with the staff.’” – bto: Auch hier wird Druck aufgebaut. Ich kann nicht beurteilen, ob das so stimmt. Aber es klingt zumindest nachvollziehbar.
  • “Let’s summarize what’s being said here. If your DeFi project has characteristics of securities (almost all do) and it allows US investors to participate (almost all do), you need to register with the SEC (and none have). Failure to register with the SEC in this context is blatantly illegal conduct, and it has the power to stop it.” – bto: Es wäre interessant zu sehen, ob die USA das wirklich machen. Denn letztlich ist es eine Industrie, wo sie die Nase vorn haben und die gerade denen hilft, die in unsicheren Gegenden der Welt leben.
  • “In Part IV of her statement, Crenshaw cuts to the chase: ‘That being said, for non-compliant projects within our jurisdiction, we do have an effective enforcement mechanism.’” – bto: Das kennen wir aus diversen Hollywood-Filmen.
  • “How can existing DeFi projects get right with the law? In Part V, Crenshaw lays out two main concerns: transparency and pseudonymity. DeFi projects need to be far more transparent with investors about governance and operations, anti-dilution rights, and the distribution of benefits across various classes of investors – all the things a typical registration filing would cover. The SEC also objects to the pseudonymous nature of DeFi participants. Currently, transaction volumes can be faked, bots can collude to drive up values, insiders can leverage their information asymmetry without proper disclosure, and money launderers have free reign. According to SEC, all this needs to end.” – bto: Das kann man nur begrüßen.
  • “‘I recognize that in some ways DeFi is synonymous with pseudonymous. The use of alphanumeric strings that obscure real world identity was a core feature of Bitcoin and has been present in essentially all blockchains that have followed. But in the U.S., investors have long been comfortable with a compromise in which they give up some limited degree of privacy by sharing their identity with the entity through which they trade securities. In return, they benefit from regulated markets that are more fair, orderly, and efficient, with less manipulation and fraud.’ But…doesn’t that effectively end DeFi as we know it?” – bto: Zumindest nimmt es vielen Produkten den Reiz, der ihnen zugesprochen wird.

Interessant allemal.