Subject: S7-04-23: Webform Comments from Anonymous
From: Anonymous
Affiliation:

Oct. 31, 2023

Dear Securities and Exchange Commission,

I am writing to provide my public comment on the proposed rule titled
"Safeguarding Advisory Client Assets", which aims to enhance
investor protections and address gaps in the custody rule. While I
appreciate the SEC's efforts to strengthen the safeguards for
client assets, I have concerns regarding the lack of clarity on
custody requirements for digital assets and the use of poorly defined
terms in the proposal.

Firstly, the proposal fails to provide clear guidelines on custody
requirements for digital assets, creating uncertainty for market
participants. As the cryptocurrency market continues to evolve, it is
crucial for regulatory authorities to establish clear and
comprehensive rules to ensure the protection of these assets.
Unfortunately, the current proposal does not provide specific criteria
for determining who qualifies as a qualified custodian for digital
assets. This ambiguity leaves room for inconsistent interpretations
and may hinder the growth and innovation of the digital asset
industry.

Furthermore, the proposal utilizes poorly defined terms that are
susceptible to multiple interpretations. The terms
"platform," "software," and "ledger" are
essential components within the digital asset ecosystem, yet the
proposal lacks explicit definitions for these terms. Without clear
definitions, it becomes challenging for market participants to
navigate the regulatory landscape effectively. Additionally, the
definition of terms such as "wallet" and
"validator" do not align with their technical meanings,
leading to confusion and potential misapplication of the rules.

It is essential for regulatory agencies to provide clear and concise
guidelines to facilitate compliance and enhance investor protection.
By offering explicit definitions and comprehensive frameworks for
custody requirements, the SEC can promote a more transparent and
secure environment for digital asset investments.

In order to address these concerns, I urge the SEC to collaborate with
relevant industry stakeholders, including digital asset custodians,
blockchain developers, and experts, to develop comprehensive
guidelines and definitions for custody requirements and digital asset
terminologies. This collaborative approach will help to ensure that
the regulatory framework keeps up with the rapid pace of technological
advancements in the digital asset space.

In conclusion, while I support the SEC's goal of enhancing
investor protections through the proposed rule on safeguarding
advisory client assets, I believe it is vital to address the lack of
clarity on custody requirements for digital assets and the use of
poorly defined terms. By taking appropriate actions to provide clear
guidelines and definitions, the SEC can foster a regulatory
environment that encourages innovation while still protecting
investors.

Thank you for considering these concerns and soliciting public
comments. I look forward to the SEC's continued commitment to
investor protection and the development of a robust regulatory
framework.