In a joint effort, Republican lawmakers led by Home Monetary Providers Committee Chair Patrick McHenry and Home Agriculture Committee Chair Glenn Thompson have referred to as upon Securities and Alternate Fee (SEC) Chair Gary Gensler to offer additional clarification on the company’s stance relating to the custody of Ethereum (ETH) by Prometheum.
The lawmakers, together with Representatives French Hill, Dusty Johnson, Tom Emmer, and Warren Davidson, expressed issues over the dearth of transparency within the SEC’s Particular Function Dealer-Seller (SPBD) regime and the potential ramifications of permitting Prometheum to proceed with its custody providers for ETH.
Recognition Of Ethereum As Non-Safety
Of their letter despatched on Tuesday, the lawmakers emphasised the SEC and Commodity Futures Buying and selling Fee’s (CFTC) earlier recognition of Ethereum as a non-security digital asset.
Based mostly on this precedent, they identified that the SEC’s present regulatory framework doesn’t allow SPBD custody of non-security digital property. The lawmakers additionally warned that permitting Prometheum to proceed below these circumstances may have “irreparable penalties” for the digital asset markets.
The Republican lawmakers urged Chair Gensler to make clear the SEC’s place on a number of key points, together with the power of SPBDs to custody non-securities, the SEC’s strategy to addressing SPBD non-compliance, Ethereum’s regulatory classification, and the SEC’s particular stance relating to Prometheum’s latest announcement.
The letter additional raised issues concerning the lack of a transparent definition for “digital asset securities” and the SEC’s failure to offer complete steerage or suggest guidelines for asset classification throughout the digital asset market.
The lawmakers additionally expressed their disappointment with Chair Gensler’s refusal to acknowledge Ethereum as a non-security digital asset, stating that his “unwillingness” to make clear the therapy of ETH has contributed to the confusion and uncertainty surrounding its classification.
Lawmakers Urge Decision
The lawmakers criticized the SEC for creating “uncertainty” amongst regulated entities by failing to establish which digital property needs to be thought of “digital asset securities.”
They referenced short-term frameworks established to facilitate buying and selling and custodial providers for digital asset securities. The SEC’s Division of Buying and selling and Markets issued a no-action letter to FINRA in September 2020 outlining situations for registered broker-dealers to function an Various Buying and selling System (ATS) buying and selling digital asset securities. The letter additional reads:
Regardless of this historical past of recognizing Ethereum as a non-security digital asset, you’ve gotten constantly refused to acknowledge that ETH shouldn’t be a safety. In your March 2023 testimony earlier than the Home Committee on Monetary Providers you declined to reply a number of questions on whether or not ETH needs to be thought of a commodity. Your unwillingness to make clear the therapy of ETH solely exacerbates the confusion and uncertainty relating to ETH’s classification as demonstrated by the Prometheum announcement.
Finally, the letter confused the necessity for regulatory readability and a complete strategy to digital asset classification to reduce uncertainty and foster progress throughout the digital asset ecosystem.
They referred to as on Chair Gensler to handle their issues promptly, contemplating the potential implications for market members and the broader digital asset markets.
Chair Gensler and the SEC have but to answer the letter formally, however the trade awaits additional developments because the regulatory panorama for digital property continues to evolve.
Featured picture from Shutterstock, chart from TradingView.com
