Republican members of the U.S. House of Representatives say that the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is looking for publicity and political impact with its anti-crypto strategy.
Representatives French Hill of Arkansas and Dusty Johnson of South Dakota recently a letter to SEC Chairman Gary Gensler highlighting the need for clear crypto guidelines.
“Establishing a comprehensive regulatory framework for digital assets is a priority for the House Committee on Financial Services and House Committee on Agriculture.
A well-regulated marketplace is essential to ensure the United States continues to benefit from the innovation and growth in markets, services, and activities utilizing digital assets and blockchain technology.”
The Congressmen go on to admonish the regulatory agency for regulating through enforcement actions, which they say has caused confusion. The letters also say the timing of the SEC’s actions seems to coincide with associated Congressional activities, which appears intentional.
“While Congress works to close regulatory gaps, the SEC has opted to regulate by enforcement. Additionally, the SEC has sought to regulate digital asset intermediaries through multiple rulemakings and staff actions.
In fact, Financial Services Committee Republicans have sent numerous letters to the SEC expressing concern with several proposed rulemakings and staff actions. This approach does not result in compliance and customer protection, but instead creates further confusion, as demonstrated by the recent summary judgment.
This concern is exacerbated by certain Commission actions, seemingly timed to coincide with related Congressional activity, which appears calculated for maximum publicity and political impact.”
The Representatives say that establishing comprehensive crypto laws would be a better approach for the digital assets industry and consumers rather than arbitrarily hunting down firms.
“[The SEC’s] approach does not protect the public. Legislation would do far more to prevent future collapses of digital asset firms than enforcement actions.
A statutory framework would establish a process for firms to come into the regulatory parameter and comply with consumer protections, rather than relying on enforcement actions to punish a bad actor after the damage has already been done.”
