> In this newly created advisory position, Ms. Szczepanik will coordinate efforts across all SEC Divisions and Offices regarding the application of U.S. securities laws to emerging digital asset technologies and innovations, including Initial Coin Offerings and cryptocurrencies.
I wonder which existing U.S. securities laws will be applied to existing cryptocurrencies.
Based on recent SEC reports, The Securities Exchange Act, The Investment Company Act, and Investment Advisers Act are applicable to most ICOs that the SEC deems to be in violation of federal law.
The SEC reacts to complaints of losses. The ICO lawsuits have already started.[1] Currently being sued: Tezos, Giga Watt, Dynamic Ledger Solutions, Centra Tech, Monkey Capital, ATBCoin. Probably more.
This is when issuing an unregistered security bites back. The lawsuits often just claim it was an unregistered security, which is easy to prove. If someone lost money, they can go after the people behind the ICO on that basis.
> Ms. Szczepanik joined the SEC in 1997 and most recently served as an Assistant Director in the Division of Enforcement’s Cyber Unit. She is the Head of the SEC’s Distributed Ledger Technology Working Group, Co-Head of its Dark Web Working Group, and a member of its FinTech Working Group. Ms. Szczepanik received her J.D. from Georgetown Law and her B.S. in Engineering from the University of Pennsylvania.
Sounds like an exceptional woman. Would love to hear her speak on these topics.
She is. I had the pleasure of working with her on in the distributed ledger tech working group (back when it was still the cryptocurrency working group) when she founded it in 2013. At the time, I was the lead eng for one of the SEC's quant groups and they needed a coder who understood the tech and didn't own any coin (exams/enf actions in crypto are tech-heavy). I raised my hand to be the founding tech lead specifically so I could be in the room to represent the "omg don't ban it, we don't know where this is going" position. Turned out that voice not needed at all.
The SEC has a well informed and nuanced view of crypto that underpins their restraint on the matter which, in no small part, is due to Ms. Szczepanik. If you're looking for an example of what happens when you don't have someone like her then look no further than NY. NY just jumped in and messed everything up with the Bitlicense.
Here's one of the most recent take from Chairman Jay Clayton for ICOs not following state and federal securities law:
applaud our fellow regulators in the United States and Canada who are coordinating and participating in efforts to police fraud in the Initial Coin Offering (ICO) markets. These state and provincial regulators play a critical role in protecting Main Street investors.
When investors are offered and sold securities, whether through traditional channels or through an ICO on a sales-oriented website, state and federal securities laws apply. These laws have applied to our securities markets for over 80 years. At their core, these laws require full and fair disclosures of material information about both the securities and the venture being funded. Unfortunately, some market participants seem to believe that the use of new technology provides a basis for ignoring the core principles of our securities laws. In the United States, we have built a $19 trillion dollar economy by facilitating investments in our public and private capital markets through our disclosure-based approach to regulation. Certainly there are improvements that can be made to our regulatory system. There always are and we are pursuing various initiatives to increase efficiency and enhance investor protection. But there is absolutely no case for abandoning our core principles. I know NASAA shares this view.
10 comments
[ 3.6 ms ] story [ 39.2 ms ] threadI wonder which existing U.S. securities laws will be applied to existing cryptocurrencies.
This is when issuing an unregistered security bites back. The lawsuits often just claim it was an unregistered security, which is easy to prove. If someone lost money, they can go after the people behind the ICO on that basis.
[1] https://www.equities.com/news/class-action-lawsuits-hit-cryp...
The SEC also proactively brings suits against misbehaving persons.
Sounds like an exceptional woman. Would love to hear her speak on these topics.
https://www.ajjmanhattan.com/instructors
The SEC has a well informed and nuanced view of crypto that underpins their restraint on the matter which, in no small part, is due to Ms. Szczepanik. If you're looking for an example of what happens when you don't have someone like her then look no further than NY. NY just jumped in and messed everything up with the Bitlicense.
applaud our fellow regulators in the United States and Canada who are coordinating and participating in efforts to police fraud in the Initial Coin Offering (ICO) markets. These state and provincial regulators play a critical role in protecting Main Street investors.
When investors are offered and sold securities, whether through traditional channels or through an ICO on a sales-oriented website, state and federal securities laws apply. These laws have applied to our securities markets for over 80 years. At their core, these laws require full and fair disclosures of material information about both the securities and the venture being funded. Unfortunately, some market participants seem to believe that the use of new technology provides a basis for ignoring the core principles of our securities laws. In the United States, we have built a $19 trillion dollar economy by facilitating investments in our public and private capital markets through our disclosure-based approach to regulation. Certainly there are improvements that can be made to our regulatory system. There always are and we are pursuing various initiatives to increase efficiency and enhance investor protection. But there is absolutely no case for abandoning our core principles. I know NASAA shares this view.
source: https://www.sec.gov/news/public-statement/statement-nasaas-a...