Oct. 30, 2023
Dear Securities and Exchange Commission, I am writing to express my concern regarding the proposed rule "Safeguarding Advisory Client Assets" (File No. S7-30-20). While I appreciate the SEC's intentions to enhance investor protections and address gaps in the custody rule, I believe there are certain aspects of the proposed rule that require further consideration. The definition of a security is still ambiguous. The definition needs to be redefined for the digital asset space before anything else is done. The ambiguity creates the potential for regulatory capture. We have witnessed the SEC pick winners and losers in the space, and that is unacceptable. I've seen entities get prosecuted when they are trying to comply while similar entities are overlooked by the SEC. It is not a level playing field. This is obvious to the everyday consumer. You are losing investor's trust in the system. There is not only ambiguity, but there is no clear path for a digital asset to comply. It is impossible to comply because you can't even fill out the form in many cases. First, provide a clear up to date definition of a security as it pertains to digital assets. Also give a clear definition of digital assets that are not securities. Next, provide a clear path for a digital asset to comply. Do this before you start to enforce ambiguous laws unevenly on entities that are willing to comply. In conclusion, while I support the overall objective of enhancing investor protections, I urge the SEC to address the issue of regulatory capture and clarify the definition of digital assets as securities. It is crucial for the SEC to demonstrate fairness and impartiality in its rulemaking process to maintain trust and confidence in the regulatory environment. Thank you for considering my concerns. I hope that my comment contributes to the ongoing discussion surrounding the proposed rule. Sincerely, Anonymous