Oct. 28, 2023
I can speculate that the number one reason for not approving the safeguarding advisory client assets would be due to potential conflicts of interest or lack of accountability in the adviser's handling of client funds. The safeguarding of client assets is crucial for trust and ethical business practices, and any doubts about an adviser's ability to properly handle these assets could lead to severe consequences for both the adviser and their clients. As a client, and not a provider, the inability to control personal funds allows for many openings to lack and need. The most ideal scenario for the decline of the approval of safeguarding advisory client assets would be one where there are effective and stringent regulatory measures in place to prevent any misuse or mishandling of client assets by financial advisors or institutions. This would include regular audits and checks to ensure compliance with the regulations and severe penalties for violations. Additionally, increased transparency and communication with clients about the handling of their assets would help to build trust and mitigate any concerns. Ultimately, this would result in a decrease in instances of mishandling of client assets and an increase in client satisfaction and confidence. Proposed Rule 223-1 of safeguarding advisory client assets Page 397 and 398 make mention of current approved advisors large and small. By utilizing current advisors in the system in which is currently unstable and mixed between good and bad actors, we are submitting ourselves to a controlled closed circuit in which takes away from the freedom and liberties given to the American people. The Commission is seeking public feedback on proposed changes to reword and renumber rule 206(4)-2 to better safeguard client assets for investment advisors. Pages 397 and 398 reference the current approval of both large and small advisory firms. Decentralization is crucial when it comes to safeguarding advisory clients' assets. By distributing the responsibility of managing assets across a decentralized network instead of relying on a single entity, the risk of fraud and theft is minimized. Additionally, decentralization provides clients with greater transparency, as they can oversee their own assets and transactions within the network. Ultimately, implementing decentralized systems helps to build trust between advisors and their clients, as it demonstrates a commitment to secure and responsible asset management. Decentralizing safeguards advisory client's assets by distributing them across multiple locations, reducing the risk of loss or theft. This practice is reinforced by legal regulations and stipulations that mandate certain levels of protection and security protocols. Decentralization is crucial to maintaining the trust and confidence of advisory clients, as it provides an additional layer of protection against potential financial harm. In addition to legal compliance, adopting decentralization also has practical benefits in minimizing the potential for operational disruption and protecting client data from cyber threats. additionally in proposal 204-2 there is a clear notification that all client funds will be accounted for whether it be by the larger or smaller advisers, which implies the control of said funds will be within the said advisors, rather than any individual or non appointed entity. In conclusion, referring to the privacy of an individuals usage of personal funds should be relient solely upon the individual whom earned said funds, the application of a third party intervening within the financial status of all parties will completely deconstruct any liberty of freedom of choice, as there will be necessary approvals on the use of said funds in all cases, which restricts are freedom of movement, our Fifth Ammendment The Fifth Amendment breaks down into five rights or protections: the right to a jury trial when you're charged with a crime, protection against double jeopardy, protection against self-incrimination, the right to a fair trial, and protection against the taking of property by the government without compensation. Proposal 204-2 pages 397-399 infringes on my freedom of movement and my rights to my property, in this case crypto currency in which has been purchased by any individual. By proposing a third party will be controlling all financial actions going forward implies that the decisions going forward will continue developing in this form. With the inability to make purchases, it will be difficult to travel, move, and even eat due to any or all of the specific approved providers and the policies provider to the approved providers whom are under the direction of the SEC, and/or any other organization or governing body.