Dear Sir/Madam, I am writing to express my concerns and opposition to the Securities and Exchange Commission's ("SEC") proposed rule on "Safeguarding Advisory Client Assets." While I appreciate the SEC's intention to enhance investor protection and address gaps in the custody rule, I believe that this proposed rule goes against the principles of individual freedom and autonomy that America was built upon. The expansion of the rule's scope to include a broader range of investments held in a client's account raises concerns about the potential infringement on personal liberties and investment choices. By defining assets and including discretionary authority in custody, the proposed rule threatens to limit the freedom individuals have to manage their own investments according to their unique circumstances and risk tolerance. The requirement for investment advisers to use a qualified custodian also raises concerns about centralization and restrictions on individual autonomy. By enforcing this requirement, the proposed rule undermines the principles of decentralization and personal responsibility that have contributed to the growth and innovation of the financial industry. Furthermore, the proposed rule fails to adequately address the unique challenges presented by crypto assets. The struggle to demonstrate exclusive control over these assets highlights the need for a more nuanced approach that embraces technological advancement while ensuring investor protection. Imposing rigid requirements without considering the nuances of custodial control in the digital realm stifles innovation and undermines the potential of crypto assets to empower individuals in their financial endeavors. Additionally, the proposed rule's emphasis on segregated client assets, with limited exceptions, neglects the importance of individual rights and freedoms. While it is essential to protect client assets, a one-size-fits-all approach that diminishes flexibility and individual choice goes against the principles upon which America was founded. Moreover, the burdensome compliance requirements and additional costs imposed by the proposed rule may hinder the ability of small advisers to serve their clients effectively. These increased costs may disproportionately impact smaller businesses, limiting competition and decreasing investor options. In conclusion, I believe that the proposed rule on "Safeguarding Advisory Client Assets" undermines the principles of individual freedom, autonomy, and innovation that are integral to the American spirit. Instead of imposing additional regulations that limit individual choices and hamper economic growth, I encourage the SEC to explore alternative approaches that foster innovation and empower individuals to manage their own investments responsibly. Thank you for considering my opposition to this proposed rule. If you require any further information or would like to discuss this matter, please feel free to contact me using this email address. Yours sincerely, Mr.E