Oct. 28, 2023
Dear Securities and Exchange Commission, I am writing to express my concerns, although it seems unlikely that the Securities and Exchange Commission will actually pay attention or make any meaningful changes based on public comments. It is clear that the SEC has put some effort into proposing the Safeguarding Advisory Client Assets rule, but it is questionable whether the rule will actually achieve its intended goals and be fair for all parties involved. As a concerned U.S. citizen who has little faith in the regulatory process, I feel compelled to voice my dissatisfaction with certain aspects of the proposed rule. One area of concern is the lack of clarity, which is unfortunately a recurring theme in many regulatory proposals. The SEC's failure to provide clear and comprehensive guidance on anti-fraud measures for digital assets is disappointing but not surprising. The fast-paced nature of technological advancements and the increasingly complex digital asset space make it difficult for regulators to keep up. However, it would be nice if the SEC could at least make an attempt to understand these emerging technologies and provide meaningful guidance to protect investors from potential fraudulent activities. Unfortunately, the current proposal falls short in this regard. Another concern is the disregard for privacy and the potential risks associated with allowing multiple third parties to have access to sensitive financial and personal information. While it is understandable that regulators need access to certain information for oversight purposes, it is concerning that the SEC has not taken the privacy and safety of investors into greater consideration. The proposed rule lacks sufficient safeguards against potential data breaches or unauthorized access to personal information, putting investors at unnecessary risk. Perhaps the SEC should prioritize the privacy and safety of investor data and implement stricter protocols for third-party access and regular audits of data security measures. But hey, what do I know? In addition to these specific concerns, I feel compelled to bring up the potential economic impact of the proposed rule. While investor protection is important, it is essential to strike the right balance between protection and stifling market operations and capital formation. Excessive regulatory burdens can hinder innovation and impede economic growth, yet the SEC often fails to take these factors into account when developing new rules. It would be refreshing if the SEC would conduct a thorough economic analysis that considers both the costs and benefits of the proposed rule, but again, I won't hold my breath. In conclusion, it is clear that the proposed Safeguarding Advisory Client Assets rule falls short on multiple fronts. The lack of clarity on anti-fraud measures for digital assets, the disregard for privacy and data security, and the potential negative economic impact are all areas that the SEC should seriously reconsider. However, I have little faith that these concerns will be taken seriously or that any meaningful changes will be made based on public comments. Nonetheless, I appreciate the opportunity to express my concerns, even though I doubt it will make any difference whatsoever. Warm regards, A Concerned U.S. Citizen