The SEC's proposed rule requiring enhanced disclosures and restrictions around advisory client assets and custodians raises understandable concerns about potential negative impacts on smaller investment advisers and niche custodians. While the rule aims to increase protections for retail investors, an overly broad or rigid approach risks detrimentally affecting market competition and innovation. Specifically, the required quarterly compliance attestations and presumed inadequacy of relying on certain non-traditional custodians like cryptocurrency platforms imposes disproportionate burdens on smaller participants. The increased compliance costs and de facto exclusion of emerging custodial technologies is likely to drive some smaller advisers and fintech companies out of business entirely. Entrenched large advisers and custodians will be better equipped to absorb these regulatory burdens. Reduced competition and access to specialized services harms retail investors by limiting choice, increasing costs, and chilling further innovation. Many smaller advisers provide unique value propositions to clients that larger players do not, such as hyper-customized portfolios, specialized assets, or differentiated philosophies. If these advisers are squeezed out by regulatory overhead, investor choice suffers. Similarly, restricting adviser access to new custodial technologies prevents further development of potentially improved or more secure custodial models. Rigid adherence to traditional custodians ignores opportunities for efficiency and security gains from emerging technologies like decentralized finance. In summary, the SEC should ensure its admirable investor protection goals do not inadvertently consolidate advisory services or custodial technologies. Excluding promising innovations and increasing regulatory barriers to entry risks long-term stagnation. With measured calibration, both investors and market competitiveness can thrive.