Dear Securities and Exchange Commission, Thank you for your proposal to 'fix' Rule 15c2-11. It's heartening to see you looking out for the little guy by...rolling back transparency rules after the financial industry complained they were too much work? Seems legit. Your argument is that this change won't affect the 'everyman' because we aren't 'sophisticated' enough to be trading in the obscure bond markets you're now shielding from public disclosure. You're removing the 'Show Your Work' requirement because the pros in that sandbox don't need the answers written on the board. But here's the problem with that logic: A Bad Precedent: You are cementing a policy where, if a financial rule is deemed too burdensome by the industry it regulates, the solution is to simply get rid of the rule for them. What happens next time? The "Sophisticated" Smokescreen: The document itself admits that removing this requirement could "increase the risk" of "manipulative and fraudulent trading schemes" (Page 36). You're pinning the safety of an entire market on the hope that only "sophisticated" players are in it and that they'll all do their due diligence. Isn't the entire point of the SEC to regulate, rather than to hope for the best? What About the Future? The document mentions crypto-assets. What happens when a new, complex financial product is technically a "non-equity security"? With this change, it will default to having less transparency. You are preemptively punching holes in the dam before we even know where the next leak will spring. Ultimately, you are turning off a light in a dark room because the people who own the flashlights said they didn't need it, leaving everyone else to wonder what might be lurking in the shadows. This isn't protecting investors; it's a calculated shrug. So, no. I don't like this rule and it should be tossed into the trash can with all due haste. The only reason this will be adopted is because of regulatory capture and the limp-wristed 'efforts' of those in the pockets of the supposed aggrieved.