If there is a canary in the "coal mine" under supervision (in the period when the technology is still underdeveloped, the miner will put a canary in the mine before the mine, and ensure that there is enough oxygen in the mine), then it must be Crypto Mom, the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) member Hester Peirce. Because of her friendly attitude towards cryptocurrencies, the community affectionately called her Crypto Mom. She said that the regulator has been resisting the Bitcoin ETF, which means it has not caught the focus.
In a recent interview, Peirce seems to suggest that the narrow-minded SEC has stifled the potential of cryptocurrencies and the SEC refused to accept change. She handed the fate of the Bitcoin ETF to the market, but Crypto Mom quickly pointed out the place where regulation failed.
- BTC insurance falls below the 9000 mark, risk and opportunity coexist
- BTC and the "Great Wealth Transfer" of Millennials
- Bitcoin fell 10% in an instant. Is the “bull market” a short-lived one?
- Bitcoin Lightning Network: RSMC
- What else can Bitcoin bring us if we can't hedge?
- Destiny and reincarnation: the moment of Bitcoin's production reduction
In general, the agency is not doing a good job in innovation, so this is the area I want to study, because this is where innovation and SEC 'hand in hand'.
Indeed, Peirce acts as a bridge between innovators and regulators in the blockchain, and she confirms that most people in the industry are frustrated by regulation.
The regulator ignored this area because it did not grasp the key points.
But this does not mean that cryptocurrencies can get out of trouble. Crypto Mom mentioned the US capital market, the strength of which is partly due to regulation. She added: “Regulators must continue to focus on new areas.”
There is no doubt that the future of the Bitcoin ETF is the biggest concern of the cryptocurrency community. Peirce said half-jokingly that she refused to predict whether the SEC would approve the Bitcoin ETF in 2019. As everyone knows, she disagreed with her colleagues for the ETF application submitted by the Wenkleworth brothers, but was eventually rejected.
I don't know if this product or other exchange-traded products are good for investors, but I think investors' judgment is definitely better than mine. Sometimes even if something finally appears in the market, it may fail. This is the law of the market and the decision of the market.
In addition, Bitcoin ETF applicants can appeal against the rejection of their application, and the SEC committee can also veto the previous decision.
When it comes to ICO, the SEC's point of view is the same as the IRS (IRS). Peirce said: "It is best if you take the initiative to find them (regulators), lest we come to you."
When there is no centralized marketing for investors, a project is more likely to survive. If there is no monopoly on information, an old project “seems less centralized, not like a securities issue”. If in doubt, say it out loud.
You must be aware that you may be violating (the rules of the securities) and eventually get into trouble.
Given that regulators are “outdated” in management – such as the Howey test to determine if a token is a security, this is a particularly good suggestion.
At the same time, SEC officials are still working to develop clear regulatory guidelines for ICOs that have plagued them for a long time.