Dear Securities and Exchange Commission, I am writing to provide my public comment on the proposed rule "Safeguarding Advisory Client Assets." While I appreciate the SEC's efforts to enhance investor protections and address gaps in the custody rule, I believe there are certain areas that require further consideration and clarification. In particular, I would like to address the inadequate consideration of the unique properties of cryptocurrency and the potential impracticalities of the proposed regulatory requirements. Cryptocurrency, such as Bitcoin and Ethereum, represents a rapidly growing asset class that has the potential to transform the financial industry. However, the decentralized nature and technological complexities of cryptocurrency pose unique challenges for regulators. Unfortunately, the proposed rule does not adequately take into account these challenges and imposes impractical regulatory requirements on investment advisers regarding digital assets. One of the key issues with the proposed rule is how it addresses the application of the custody rule to crypto assets. The SEC should recognize that digital assets are fundamentally different from traditional financial assets in terms of control and ownership. The decentralized nature of blockchain technology ensures that custody of crypto assets is distributed among various network participants, rather than concentrated in the hands of a single custodian. Therefore, imposing traditional custodial requirements on investment advisers dealing with cryptocurrencies may be impractical and hinder the development of the industry. Furthermore, the proposed rule fails to provide clear guidance on how investment advisers can demonstrate exclusive control over crypto assets. Unlike traditional financial assets, there is no central authority or custodian that can provide definitive proof of custody. The distributed and pseudonymous nature of cryptocurrency transactions make it challenging for investment advisers to meet the strict requirements of demonstrating exclusive control over client assets. This not only creates compliance burdens for investment advisers, but also undermines the effectiveness of the rule in safeguarding client assets. In order to foster innovation and growth in the digital asset space, it is crucial for regulators to consider alternative regulatory approaches that are tailored to the unique properties of cryptocurrencies. The SEC should engage in meaningful discussions with industry experts and stakeholders to develop a regulatory framework that strikes the right balance between investor protections and fostering innovation. This could involve the development of best practices or industry standards specific to the custody of digital assets, rather than imposing impractical and potentially stifling requirements. In conclusion, while I acknowledge the SEC's intention to safeguard advisory client assets, I urge the Commission to carefully consider the unique properties of cryptocurrency when finalizing the proposed rule. Failing to do so may hinder innovation and impede the growth of the digital asset industry. I hope that my concerns are taken into account during the rulemaking process, and I appreciate the opportunity to provide this public comment. Sincerely, Dolly H