Dear Securities and Exchange Commission, I am writing to provide my comments and concerns regarding the proposed rule on "Safeguarding Advisory Client Assets." While I appreciate the SEC's efforts to enhance investor protections and address gaps in the custody rule, I have some reservations about certain aspects of the proposed regulations. One area that I find particularly concerning is the unequal treatment of different types of digital assets. The SEC's proposed rules treat these assets inconsistently, which can lead to confusion and potential regulatory arbitrage. The current regulatory landscape for digital assets is already complex and evolving quickly. Introducing inconsistent treatment can further complicate matters and hinder innovation in this emerging sector. Moreover, the proposed regulations create reporting requirements for a wide range of participants in decentralized finance (DeFi). This multiplicity of reporting could result in inconsistent and overlapping reports for the same transaction. This not only adds unnecessary complexity and administrative burden but also increases the risk of errors and compliance failures. Additionally, I have concerns about the compliance costs associated with the proposed rule. While it is essential to protect investor assets, the magnitude of compliance costs should be carefully considered, particularly for smaller entities. The proposed rule and amendments may impose a significant financial burden on small investment advisers, potentially impacting their ability to provide cost-effective services to clients. Any regulations should strike a balance between investor protections and the sustainability of small investment advisers. Furthermore, I urge the SEC to provide further clarification on certain aspects of the proposed rule. Clarity is crucial to ensure consistent interpretation and implementation of the regulations by investment advisers. Ambiguities can lead to unintended consequences or create opportunities for regulatory arbitrage. Clear and concise guidelines will help foster compliance while minimizing operational challenges. In conclusion, while I support the SEC's goal of enhancing investor protections, I believe there are concerns that need to be addressed in the proposed rule on "Safeguarding Advisory Client Assets." Unequal treatment of different types of digital assets, the potential for inconsistent reporting in DeFi, the impact of compliance costs on smaller entities, and the need for greater clarity are all areas that warrant further attention. I encourage the SEC to carefully consider these concerns during the rulemaking process. Thank you for considering my comments and for providing the opportunity to express my views on this important matter. With concern, Scott Wilson