The US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has fired a major new salvo in Chair Gary Gensler’s war on cryptocurrencies, declaring illegal two of the world’s largest digital-token trading platforms, Binance and Coinbase. It is a welcome development: In myriad ways, the two enterprises exemplify what financial intermediaries should not do. What is needed now is an actual rulebook.
The SEC complaints, filed in federal court, read like a catalogue of what is wrong with the intermediaries through which most US investors interact with crypto. Binance and Coinbase sold products that had the features of securities, without registering as such. Much like the now-defunct FTX, they combined exchange, brokerage and clearing services — traditionally separated to avoid conflicts of interest — while failing to meet basic standards for disclosure or investor protection.
Among other things, firms controlled by Binance’s owners misused customer funds — putting nearly US$200 million, for example, into an account that was used to buy a yacht — and engaged in “wash” trades that artificially inflated transaction volumes, the SEC said.
The agency is right to crack down on such conduct.
However, enforcement actions alone would not be enough to civilize the crypto market. One problem is that the SEC must establish jurisdiction in each case by proving that securities are involved. This should be relatively straightforward with Binance and Coinbase, but it would not always be, and much of what is traded on these and other platforms probably would not qualify.
The two largest cryptocurrencies, bitcoin and ethereum, are defined as commodities by the US Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), which gives it authority over their derivatives, but not much over trading in the tokens themselves. Other tokens — including, potentially, those associated with useful projects — might be neither securities nor commodities.
This definitional confusion leaves crypto at an impasse. If a token is a security and cannot meet SEC requirements, which most probably cannot, it is illegal. If it is something else, which some probably are, it has no rules to follow. This makes operating a legal trading platform nearly impossible. New rules are thus needed to keep crypto in line and to allow for whatever benefits it might eventually deliver — but what rules?
Stretching the existing definition of commodities to cover more digital tokens, as a new draft bill in the US House of Representatives seeks to do, is not a great solution. The legislation’s main criterion for identifying commodity tokens — whether governance is decentralized, with no controlling individual — would be extremely difficult to apply in practice. Worse, it would in effect reward issuers for having (or pretending to have) nobody in charge.
A better approach would be to create a blanket legal regime for trading in any instruments that do not fall into existing categories, as well as bitcoin and ether (spot trading in which remains largely unregulated).
The US Congress could task the SEC and the CFTC with jointly creating requirements for issuers and intermediaries, including disclosure, governance, safety, soundness and protection of customer assets. Alternatively, the agencies could delegate some or all of that responsibility to an industry-funded entity that they closely oversee, on the model of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority.
None of this requires regulators to make value judgements about crypto. Whether any good comes of it, and whether people get rich as a result, is a separate matter. However, with the right rules in place, the chances of a desirable outcome would at least be much improved.
The editors are members of the Bloomberg Opinion editorial board.
President William Lai (賴清德) recently attended an event in Taipei marking the end of World War II in Europe, emphasizing in his speech: “Using force to invade another country is an unjust act and will ultimately fail.” In just a few words, he captured the core values of the postwar international order and reminded us again: History is not just for reflection, but serves as a warning for the present. From a broad historical perspective, his statement carries weight. For centuries, international relations operated under the law of the jungle — where the strong dominated and the weak were constrained. That
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS