Apr. 19, 2023
April 19, 2023 I disagree with the proposed text and the rule change should not be adopted. It is much too broad and vague. For example, let's assume you have some made up coin the SEC has deemed is a security. Let's call it SECcoin. You want to sell it so you go out and make a post on craigslist letting people know you are selling. You use google to find what the current market price is for the SECcoin. You are lucky and find a buyer who agrees to a price, and you two settle the trade in a peer to peer transaction. The rule as it's written in my understanding would include google and craigslist in this example as operators of an exchange, and even the buyers and sellers themselves. It's just not reasonable. I did like from my reading however that the author conceded: \"many activities involving digital assets are within the scope of existing domestic laws and regulations\". That being said I do agree with the idea of protecting investors. Perhaps it is not the best idea though to adopt such a powerful new rule when some in the department have been so litigious. And, nobody can get a (straightforward) answer as to what exactly qualifies as a security from the department anyways so why is this even being considered with that in mind? I think the department's time and resources would be more efficiently used by simply applying existing laws to the new technology, and especially by better educating the public. Thanks for your time and consideration