Oct. 29, 2023
Securities and Exchange Commission 100 F Street, NE Washington, DC 20549 Subject: Strong Opposition to Proposed Rule "Safeguarding Advisory Client Assets" Dear Sir/Madam, I am writing as a concerned citizen to vehemently object to the proposed rule "Safeguarding Advisory Client Assets" (File No. 34-_____) by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). It is my firm belief that the SEC has no jurisdiction to regulate cryptocurrency and should refrain from imposing unnecessary restrictions on this innovative and growing industry. 1. Exceeding Regulatory Authority: The SEC's proposed rule appears to overstep its regulatory authority by attempting to extend its jurisdiction to digital assets, including cryptocurrencies. As per established legal definitions and court rulings, cryptocurrencies do not fit the traditional securities framework and should not be subject to SEC regulations. The SEC must respect the limits of its authority and avoid encroaching upon areas best regulated by other entities. 2. Necessity for Collaboration and Clarity: The SEC's limited understanding of the unique characteristics and complexities of digital assets is evident in the proposed rule. To ensure adequate investor protection and promote responsible innovation, it is crucial for the SEC to collaborate with other regulatory bodies, including those with expertise in the field of blockchain and digital assets. Developing clear and comprehensive guidelines through collaborative efforts will create a more suitable regulatory framework for this emerging industry. 3. Preserving Capital Formation and Promoting Innovation: Unnecessary regulatory burdens and stifling compliance costs can have a detrimental impact on capital formation and hinder innovation in the advisory industry. The proposed rule, if enforced, may create insurmountable barriers for small, innovative startups and drive them to operate in offshore jurisdictions with less stringent regulations. The SEC must prioritize supporting capital formation and fostering innovation to ensure the long-term growth and competitiveness of the United States' financial industry. 4. Limiting Regulatory Overreach and Fostering Competitive Environment: As a regulatory body, the SEC owes it to the public to foster fair competition and ensure market integrity. However, the proposed rule, as currently formulated, risks limiting competition and inadvertently stifling emerging players in the cryptocurrency space. The SEC must exercise caution and avoid favoring established incumbents at the expense of innovative newcomers who could drive positive change in the industry. In conclusion, I strongly oppose the proposed rule "Safeguarding Advisory Client Assets" by the Securities and Exchange Commission. The SEC's jurisdiction does not extend to cryptocurrency regulation, and its attempt to impose unnecessary restrictions is unwarranted. It is imperative that the SEC collaborates with other relevant regulatory bodies, preserves capital formation, and fosters innovation while refraining from regulatory overreach and favoritism. I appreciate the opportunity to voice my concerns, and I trust that the SEC will take these objections into serious consideration during the rulemaking process. If you require any additional information or clarification, please do not hesitate to contact me. Yours sincerely, Concerned Citizen