Oct. 29, 2023
Dear Securities and Exchange Commission, I am writing to submit my public comment on the proposed rule "Safeguarding Advisory Client Assets." While I appreciate the Commission's efforts to enhance investor protections and address gaps in the custody rule, I have several concerns regarding the proposed regulations. Unequal Treatment of Different Market Participants: One major issue I have with the proposed rules is the unequal treatment of different market participants. The inconsistent treatment of various entities can lead to unfair competition and potential market distortions. It is essential that market participants are subject to equal regulatory requirements to ensure a level playing field. Poorly Defined Terms: Another significant concern is the use of poorly defined terms in the proposed regulations. The proposed rules employ vague and undefined terms such as "platform," "software," and "ledger," which are susceptible to multiple interpretations. This lack of clarity introduces confusion and ambiguity, making it difficult for market participants to comply and ensuring consistent implementation across the industry. Furthermore, the definition of terms like "wallet" and "validator" does not align with their technical meaning. It is crucial that definitions accurately reflect their intended purpose and technical understanding. Failing to do so may introduce misinterpretations and hinder effective compliance. Lack of Transparency and Inconsistency: The proposed regulations raise concerns about transparency and consistency in their implementation. The absence of clear guidelines and requirements undermines transparency for investors and market participants. Clear and consistent regulations are essential to foster trust and ensure fair practices in the market. Moreover, the proposed rule's lack of consistency with existing guidance and practices adds to the confusion and potentially obstructs compliance efforts. It is crucial that the regulations are aligned with industry best practices and consider the existing frameworks to promote smooth implementation. Questionable Competence and Corruption: While reviewing the proposed rules, I couldn't help but question the competence and integrity of the SEC. The vague language, inconsistent treatment, and lack of well-defined terms indicate either incompetence or potential corruption within the Commission. These issues erode public confidence and trust in the regulatory framework that governs our financial markets. In conclusion, I urge the Securities and Exchange Commission to address the concerns raised above before finalizing the proposed rule. Ensuring equal treatment, clarity of terms, transparency, consistency, and demonstrating competence are vital to establishing a robust regulatory framework that enhances investor protection and maintains the integrity of our financial markets. Thank you for considering my comments. Sincerely, Jakub Szymczak